JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2009 affirming the judgment and order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 3021/1998 arisen out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 74/1998.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate has convicted the petitioner under Sections 409/34, 420/34, 467/34 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment for the offence:

(i) under Section 409/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of one month.

(ii) under Section 420/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment of one month.

(iii) under Section 467/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional Simple Imprisonment of one month.

(iv) under Section 471/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional Simple Imprisonment of one month.

It was further directed by the learned trial court that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside of both the judgment and order dated 31.08.2013 and 27.08.2009 as aforesaid.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgments are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law on account of the fact that the requisite sanction for prosecution has not been obtained in the present case and the entire acts and omissions of the present petitioner was in discharge of official duty. On this proposition, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court reported in 1997 Supreme (All) 1136 and also the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati reported in 2018 Supreme (Gau.) 22. The learned counsel has further submitted that otherwise also the impugned judgments of conviction are not sustainable in view of the fact that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. For this, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in a case reported in 2016 Supreme (Jhk) 150 as well as the judgment reported in 2018 (4) JBCJ 29. The learned counsel further submits that so far as the seizure witnesses are concerned, they have not fully supported the prosecution case, in as much as, they have stated that their signatures were taken at the police station. However, he does not dispute the fact that these seizure witnesses have not disputed their signatures on the seizure list. The learned counsel submits that considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the conviction as well as the sentence of the petitioner is fit to be set-aside.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions on merit, it may also be taken into consideration that the case was lodged as back as in the year 1998 and the petitioner has faced the rigors of criminal case for more than 23 years and the present age of the petitioner is approximately 50 years and he does not have any criminal antecedent. He submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a total period of about 6 months including custody during trial and at the stage of revision. He has also submitted that there is no minimum sentence, as such, prescribed under the provisions of sections under which the petitioner has been convicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordi