Ramraj Prasad vs State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 588

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Ramraj Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Rev. No. 407 of 2012
Decided on : 31-08–2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Gouri Devi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P.

Headnote:
Bihar Excise Act, 1985 - Section 47(a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 272, 397 and 273 - Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 313, 161 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 3 , 4 and 6 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3 (1) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(2) – Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale - Whether trial court was right in refusing to extend benefits of PO Act to petitioners on ground that Excise Act carries a minimum sentence of 3 months and fine though it was not in dispute that present offence was first offence of petitioners – Held, Court finds that Section 47 of Excise Act, as it stood prior to 1985, did not provide any minimum sentence for offences enumerated therein, but upon amendment in year 1985 it provided for a minimum sentence, interalia, in case of first offence, for a term which may not be less than three months and a fine of not less than five hundred rupees and in default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment for a term of fifteen days - Amendment in Section 47 in year 1985 is certainly after coming into force of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Excise Act by itself is a special Act - Offence being first offence of petitioners and petitioners have faced criminal case for a long period since 2001 and more than 20 years have elapsed from date of incident, Court finds that ends of justice would be served if sentence of petitioners is further modified and reduced to minimum sentence of three months and fine is enhanced to be deposited by petitioners before court below within a period of one months from date of communication of order to court below - Petitioners are directed to surrender before court below within a period of one month from communication of this order to court below to serve remaining sentence failing which their bail bonds will be immediately cancelled - In case, fine amount is not deposited within stipulated time frame, petitioners would serve sentence as already imposed by learned appellate court - Revision dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Gouri Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.03.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 198/2009 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 47(a) of Bihar Excise Act, as adapted by the State of Jharkhand, (hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act), but modified and reduced their sentences to Simple Imprisonment for 06 months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each. The period already undergone by the petitioners during investigation and trial was directed to be set off. The criminal appeal was dismissed with the modification in the sentences of the petitioners.

4. The learned trial court, vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 1040 of 2001/Tr. Case No. 373 of 2009, convicted the petitioners under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 Years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 02 months. However, the learned trial court acquitted the petitioners from the charges under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned trial court refused to extend the benefits under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Hereinafter referred to as the PO Act) to the petitioners on the ground that the Excise Act carries a minimum sentence of 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- though it was not in dispute that the present offence was the first offence of the petitioners.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, and refused to extend the benefit of the PO Act to them, stating that the said offence carries minimum sentence of three months and fine of Rs.500/-. The learned counsel submitted that merely because minimum sentence has been prescribed under the statute, the same by itself does not disentitle the petitioners from the benefits under the provisions of the PO Act. She submitted that it is not in dispute that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Lakhvir Singh etc. –versus- State of Punjab in Cr. Appeal No. 47-48 of 2021 decided on 19.01.2021 as reported in (2021) 2 SCC 763 and submitted that as per the ratio of this judgment, even when a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed under the statute, there is no bar in giving the benefit under the PO Act. She further submitted that the provision of the PO Act may be considered and the benefit of the same may be extended to the petitioners to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. The learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions of Section 47 of the Excise Act was substituted vide Section 11 of Act 6 of 1985, which came into force after coming into force of PO Act and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly refused to extend the benefits of PO Act to the petitioners. The Excise Act is a special Act, and its amendment in the year 1985 provides minimum sentence and fine for the first offence and also for second and subsequent offences. The learned P.P. submitted that in this view of the matter, the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not help the petitioners in any manner and accordingly, benefits of PO Act cannot b