IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 1048 of 2012

1. Nand Kishore Prasad Swarnkar

S/o Late Shibrat Swarnkar (deleted vide order dated

25.11.2021)

2. Smt. Kalawati Devi

W/o Sri Nand Kishore Prasad Swarnkar,

Both resident of Vill. + P.O. + P. S.- Ichak, Distt. Hazaribagh,

presently residing at Vill. Ghatotand, Chowk No. 12, P.O.

Ghatotand, P.S. Mandu (West Bokaro- Outpost, Distt.

Hazaribagh)

…

…

Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Malti Devi

Wife of Sri Sita Ram Swarnkar

resident of Udlu, P.S. Mandu, Distt. – Hazaribagh, At

Present- Resident of Mohalla- Mumhartoli ( Bhabha Marg.),

P.O. + P.S. Sadar, Distt.- Hazaribagh

…

… Opposite Parties

---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner s

: Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, Advocate

For the State

: Mrs. Nikki Sinha, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2

: Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate

---

09/25.11.2021

Heard Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners along with Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha,

learned counsel for the petitioners.

2.

Heard Mrs. Nikki Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on

behalf of the opposite party- State.

3.

Heard Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

4.

At the outset, learned counsel for the State has submitted

that the petitioner no. 1 has expired during the pendency of the

present case. However, she submits that fine was also imposed

against him.

5.

In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners has

submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1 and

is accordingly the legal representative of petitioner no. 1.

Accordingly, he submits that liability, if any, in connection with

2

the fine imposed upon petitioner no. 1 will be borne by

petitioner no. 2.

6.

Considering the fact that the petitioner no. 1 has expired,

office is directed to delete the name of petitioner no. 1 by red

ink. It is observed that petitioner no. 2, being the wife and the

legal representative of the petitioner no. 1, the fine amount

imposed upon petitioner no. 1 will be taken care of by the

petitioner no. 2 depending upon the merits of the case.

7.

The learned counsel for the surviving petitioner has

submitted that to the best of his knowledge, the fine amount

has already been deposited before the learned court below by

both the original petitioners and in case of any non-deposit of

the fine amount, the same will be borne by petitioner no. 2, for

both the original petitioners.

8.

The present revision has been filed against the judgement

dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned District and Additional

Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge (L.A.) Hazaribagh in Cr.

Appeal No. 189 of 2011 whereby the appellate court has upheld

and maintained the conviction of the both the original

petitioners under Sections 465, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal

Code, but acquitted them for offence under Sections 419 and

420 of Indian Penal Code.

9.

The original petitioners were convicted vide judgement

passed in C.C. No. 12 of 2004 (T.R. No. 424 of 2011) by Judicial

Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribag on 01.09.2011 for offence under

Sections 419/420/465/467/468/34 of Indian Penal Code and

were sentenced as follows:

Sentenced

under

Sections

Imprisonment and/or

Fine

Under Section 419

IPC

Simple Imprisonment for one year

Under Section 420

IPC

Two years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and

fine of Rs. 3000/-

3

Under Section 465

IPC

Two years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and

fine of Rs. 2000/-

Under Section 467

IPC

Three years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and

fine of Rs. 3000/-

Under Section 468

IPC

Three years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and

fine of Rs. 2000/-

In default of payment of fine, the original petitioners were

directed to undergo simple impr