1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 890 of 2010

-------

1. Munnu

2. Tuntun

…..

….

Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Kush Kumar Sinha

…..

….Opposite Partyies

CORAM

: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

-------

For the Petitioner

:Mr. Amresh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP

For the O.P.No.2

: Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, Adv.

………

07/18.01.2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 29.6.2010 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal

Appeal No.92 of 2009; whereby the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 13.08.2009 passed by the learned

Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau at Daltonganj, corresponding

to

G.R.No.1304/02,

Enquiry

No.304/2009;

whereby

the

petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 341,

323/34 IPC and ordered to be released after due admonition;

has been affirmed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits

that though the petitioners were convicted, however instead of

sentencing them for any charge they were ordered to be released

after due admonition. Learned counsel further draws attention

of this Court towards the Section 12 which says that under

Section 3 and 4 of the Probation and Offenders Act a person

who has been found guilty for the offence and dealt with under

the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Probation and Offenders

Act shall not be disqualified attaching in connection with

conviction of an offence under any such law, as such no fruitful

purpose shall be served by deciding the matter on merit.

4.

Learned counsel for the State as well as leaned

counsel for the O.P.No.2 submitted that much relief has

already been granted to the petitioners and admittedly instead

of sentencing them they were released on after due admonition

which will not act as any disqualification in their future carrier;

as such practically the case has been infructuous.

2

5.

Having regard to the facts of the case both the

parties does not want to press the case on merit and confine

their argument on the question with regard to admonition. It

appears that the learned trial court held the petitioners guilty

under Section 341 and 323/34 IPC, however on the point of

sentence the learned trial court directed the petitioner to be

released after due admonition. In this regard it is clarified that a

person who is found guilty for the offence and dealt with under

the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Probation and Offenders

Act shall not be disqualified attaching in connection with

conviction of an offence under any such law.

In

view

of

the

aforesaid

classification

and

submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant

criminal revision application is hereby disposed of without

interfering with the impugned orders and the same are

confirmed.

6.

Let the LCR be sent back to the court concerned

forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Fahim/-