IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 978 of 2008

1.Keshwar Sharma.

2.Santu Sharma.

3.Anuj Kumar Sharma.

..… Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

..... Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr.Adv.

For the State

: Mr. P.D.Agrawal, Spl. APP

---------

03/Dated: 31^st August, 2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 08.08.2008 passed by learned 1^st Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Cr.

Appeal No. 92 of 2003; whereby the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 30.09.2003 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau in

C.F.No. 59 of 2000/T.R. No. 193 of 2003; whereby the

petitioners were convicted under Section 33 of the Indian

Forest Act and were sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months

and under Section 14 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act

1990 to undergo S.I. for 1 month and both the sentences have

ordered to run concurrently, has been affirmed and appeal

filed by petitioners was dismissed.

3.

Mr. A.K.Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners fairly confines his argument on the question of

sentence on the ground that the instant case is of the year of

2000 and about 22 years have elapsed since then and the

petitioners must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing

-2-

litigation. He further submits that the petitioners have never

misused the privilege of bail and they are not habitual

offenders, as such some leniency may be granted by this

Court and sentence may be modified to period already

undergone.

4.

Learned Spl.P.P. opposes the contention of the

petitioners and submits that there is concurrent finding and

as such, no interference is required.

5.

After going through the impugned judgments including

the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and

also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to

interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the

judgments of conviction passed by the learned trial court and

upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

6.

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent

from record that the incident is of the year 2000 and 22 years

have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 22 years. The petitioner no. 1

remained in custody for about 89 days and petitioner nos. 2

and 3 both remains in custody for about 84 days and now

petitioner no.1 is old aged person and petitioner nos. 2 and 3

are middle aged and sending them back to prison at this stage

will hamper the entire family as well as their career. Further,

it is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the

-3-

privilege of bail. In addition, the incident does not reflect any

cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity.

7.

In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no

fruitful

purpose

would

be

served

by

sending

the

appellants/convicts back to prison; rather interest of justice

would be sufficed if the sentence is modified to period already

undergone.

8.

Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court

and upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby modified

to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for

the period already undergone.

9.

With the aforesaid observations, and modification in

sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands

disposed of.

10.

The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of

their bail bonds.

11.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts

below and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-charge

of concerned police s