Muneshwar Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 23.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2006 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with certain modifications.

The petitioner has been found guilty in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No.4 of 1980 corresponding to G.R. No.1605 of 1980 whereby the learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 409, 468 and 477 (A) IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years 6 months and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 6 months for the offence under Section 409 IPC. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2 years for offence under Section 468 of IPC and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. Further the petitioner was also convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence committed under Section 477(A) of IPC. However, the petitioner was directed to serve the sentence concurrently for all the offence.

The prosecution case is based on a written report dated 07.11.1980 of the then Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Circle, Hazaribagh against the petitioner alleging of forgery and defalcation of Government money of the Electricity Board to the tune of Rs.32,900/- with an apprehension of defalcation of some more money of the Board.

On the said report, FIR was lodged as Tisri PS Case No.04/80 against the petitioner and after the investigation, the Investigating Officer, finding involvement of the petitioner submitted charge-sheet under Section 409, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) and 201 IPC. Cognizance of the offence was accordingly, taken and charges were framed. The petitioner plead not guilty and sent up for trial.

On the basis of the evidences led before him, the learned trial court found the petitioner guilty for committing offence under Section 409, 468 and 477 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated herein above.

Being aggrieved by the order of learned trial court, the petitioner challenged the same before the court of District and Sessions Judge, Giridih being Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2006. The learned Appellate court modified the trial court judgment and found the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 408 IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months for offence under Section 408 IPC and the fine amount has been enhanced to Rs.33,000/-.

The learned counsel for the petitioner without going into merit of this case has contended that the petitioner is aged about 79 years and he has remained in custody for about 15 days. Further, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has never misused the privilege of bail granted to him in connection with this case and as such the petitioner may be granted leniency by this Court.

Per contra, the learned APP has opposed such prayer and submitted that there is no error whatsoever in the order passed by the learned Appellate court and the petitioner has already been granted leniency by the learned Appellate court.

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the material available on record including the LCR, I am of the considered opinion that admittedly the petitioner is aged about 79 years and it may not be fruitful to ask him to undergo rigorous imprisonment at this stage of life. It further appears that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and also the instant case relates to 1980 and certainly, the petitioner must have suffered rigors of litigation in last almost 40 years.

In this view of the matter, considering the age of the petitioner without going into merit of this case, I hereby modify the sentence and the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

However, it is also a fact that in his examination under Section 313, the petitioner has fairly admitted his guilt. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- within a period of 4 months from today failing which he shall serve sentence as modified by the learned appellate court. It appears that he has availed the privilege of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as such the petitioner is discharged from liability of bail bonds.

As a result, without interfering with the judgment of conviction, the instant application is dismissed with modification in sentence only.

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