Basant Kumar Mahanta @ Basanta Kumar Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand

Since both these applications arises out of the common judgment as such both are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners tenders an affidavit which has been taken on record.

The revision applications are directed against the judgment dated 2nd February, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum,

Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners along with co-convict has been dismissed and the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23rd November, 2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R.

Case No. 1946 of 2010 (T.R. No. 1324 of 2011) whereby the petitioners along with co-accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for

two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 25 (1-B) a of the Arms Act and further directed to undergo R.I. for one year

with a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under section 26 of the Arms Act, and the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been

affirmed.

At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are not professional offenders. Though they have been charged for the offence under

Sections 379, 120B of the I.P.C. in G.R. No. 254 of 2010 but they have been acquitted and there is no other criminal antecedent save and except the

present case. He further submits that except the above case they are not involved in any criminal activity and they are the sole bread earner of their

respective family as such some leniency may be granted by this Court taking a sympathetic view.

Per contra, the learned A.P.P. supports the impugned orders, however could not dispute the fact that apart from this case the petitioners were

charged in one more case in which they have been acquitted and at present they are not involved in any criminal activities.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited

scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings given by the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed

by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court, is hereby, confirmed.

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year, 2010 and more than 9 years have elapsed and it

appears from the record that the petitioners have remained in custody for about one year. It is not disputed by the State that the petitioners have not

misused the privilege of bail. Further the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity. In a situation of

this nature, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioners back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose, rather interest of justice would

be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court, is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period

already undergone subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- each.

It is made clear that the petitioners shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- each within a period of three months from today before the learned

District Legal Services Authority, Jamshedpur, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as directed by the learned trial court.

With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, both the revision applications are disposed of.

The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds subject to the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition.

Let the order be communicated to the learned trial Court through FAX.

Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.