Md. Riyaz @ Md. Reyajuddin vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 03.10.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag, in

Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2009, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 26.11.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with G.R. Case No. 688 of 2003

corresponding to T.R. No. 559 of 2009 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 435 read with Section 511 of the

Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further

directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has

failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. He further submits that on same set of allegation, the learned trial court had acquitted

two of the co-accused whereas it has convicted the petitioner alone. The alternative argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

petitioner is not a habitual offender and he has remained in custody for more than a month. As such interest of justice would be sufficed if the

sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

Per contra, the learned A.P.P. supports the impugned order and submits that there is no error whatsoever in the impugned orders and no relief should

be granted to the petitioner.

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 revision 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, 2003 and more than 16 years has elapsed and it

appears from record that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 37 days. Further, the record transpires that he has never misused the

privilege of bail. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose,

rather the sentence should be modified in lieu of fine.

Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is

sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of two months from today before the learned

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

With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.

The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

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

Let this order be sent to the learned trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Hazaribag through FAX.