Lalmani Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Lalmani Singh vs State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Apr 18, 2007

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518902

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/518902
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
Decided On: Apr 18, 2007
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 215: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, CJM, .Y.Eqbal & Amareshwar Sahay, R.K. Merathia, Narendra Nath Tiwari, JJ] Contempt Proceedings Review Powers of High Court Held, Article 215 of the Constitution vests the High Court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish fo...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lalmani Singh

Respondent

State of Bihar

Legal References

Reported In: [2007(4)JCR381(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state.3. at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment of his conviction also, but considering the facts and circumstances, he confines his prayer to the order of sentence as imposed by the trial court. learned counsel submits that the petitioner was though awarded sentence of two years for the aforesaid offence, but the same was passed without considering the age of the petitioner and also without considering the fact that it was the first offence against the petitioner without there being any criminal antecedent to his discredit. it is further submitted that the learned trial court ought to have considered that the petitioner was in fact a railway employee and the offence was petty in nature in view of the petty value of articles seized.4. it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case as also from the evidence on record indicated in the impugned order of the learned trial court that some articles claimed to be railway properties, was seized from the house of the petitioner by the r.p.f. personnel and on the petitioner's failure to offer any reasonable explanation for the possession of the railway properties, a proceeding was initiated against him and he was put on trial on being charged with for the offence under section 3(a) of the r.p. (u.p.) act. at the, trial, nine witnesses including the informant as well as other witnesses in whose presence the purported railway properties were seized, were examined by the prosecution. the trial court had placed reliance on the testimony of the witnesses and recorded its finding of guilt against the petitioner in respect of the charge for the aforesaid offence.5. it appears however, that on the question as to whether petitioner is entitled to benefit under the provisions of probation of offenders act, the trial court on considering the issue in the light of the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.1998 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1996, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of his conviction and sentence dated 30.9.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Dhanbad in R.P. Case No. 55 of 1993 was dismissed whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment of his conviction also, but considering the facts and circumstances, he confines his prayer to the order of sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was though awarded sentence of two years for the aforesaid offence, but the same was passed without considering the age of the petitioner and also without considering the fact that it was the first offence against the petitioner without there being any criminal antecedent to his discredit. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have considered that the petitioner was in fact a railway employee and the offence was petty in nature in view of the petty value of articles seized.

4. It appears from the facts and circumstances of the case as also from the evidence on record indicated in the impugned order of the learned trial Court that some articles claimed to be railway properties, was seized from the house of the petitioner by the R.P.F. personnel and on the petitioner's failure to offer any reasonable explanation for the possession of the railway properties, a proceeding was initiated against him and he was put on trial on being charged with for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act. At the, trial, nine witnesses including the informant as well as other witnesses in whose presence the purported railway properties were seized, were examined by the prosecution. The trial Court had placed reliance on the testimony of the witnesses and recorded its finding of guilt against the petitioner in respect of the charge for the aforesaid offence.

5. It appears however, that on the question as to whether petitioner is entitled to benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, the trial Court on considering the issue in the light of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, had refused to extend the aforesaid benefit on the ground that the offence was serious. Apparently, no special ground has been assigned by the trial Court for refusing to extend the privilege to the petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act or under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is apparent that the learned trial Court had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 361, Cr PC. In this view of the matter, the order of sentence, as passed by the trial Court, cannot be sustained.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, though the judgment of conviction as recorded by the trial Court against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(a) R.P. (U.P.) Act is sustained, the order of sentence is hereby set aside. Since the petitioner has already suffered detention for more than two months and considering the petty nature of offence as also the present age and condition of the petitioner, it will not be proper to remand the case to the trial Court for considering the matter on the point of sentence in the light of the provisions of Section 361, Cr PC. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioner is sufficient sentence. The petitioner is on bail, he is absolved from the liability of his bail bond.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2007 Same Parties Lalmani Singh vs State of Bihar Same Subject Criminal Same Judge D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

Criminal