Umesh Kumar Singh Alias Umesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Umesh Kumar Singh Alias Umesh Singh vs State of Bihar

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Jul 14, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/523614

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/523614
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Decided On: Jul 14, 2003
Case Number: Cri. Appeal No. 63 of 1997
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 395

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Umesh Kumar Singh Alias Umesh Singh

Advocate P.D. Agarwal and; S.U. Banerjee, Advs.

Respondent

State of Bihar

Advocate M. Patra, A.P.P.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 395
Reported In: 2004CriLJ1504

Excerpt

.....without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - parade as well as in the dock also as one of the miscreant......about the occurrence to anyone.3. altogether 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to prove the case p.w. 4 identified the appellant in the t.i. parade as well as in the dock also as one of the miscreant.4. mr. p.d. agarwal learned counsel appearing for the appellant has very fairly submitted that in view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution there is nothing, much to argue in defence and, therefore, he confined his prayer for reduction in sentence. he submits that since the occurrence is of 1994 i.e. about 10 years back and since the appellant was remanded to the jail custody on 27-1-1995 and thereby he has remained in jail for about two and half years, therefore, in the circumstances, he prays that a lenient view may be taken so far as the sentence is concerned.5. in that view of the matter, conviction under section 395 of the indian penal code passed against the appellant by the trial court is confirmed.6. so far as the sentence awarded by the trial court is concerned considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and for the ends of justice, the same is reduced to the period already undergone and the appellant is further sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 2000/- in default he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.7. in the result this appeal is dismissed with the modification of sentence as aforesaid.

Full Judgment

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26-2-1997 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in S.T. No. 344 of 1995/75 of 1996 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years.

2. The prosecution case in short is that in the night of 6/7-12-1994 at about 11 p.m. when the informant along with Lalit Oraon and Flaster Topno, were sleeping in the Khalihan. 13 unknown persons came there variously armed and told them they were members of Jan Mukti Morcha and they proposed to hold a meeting in the village. They demanded food from the villagers and thereafter started eating the food materials available in the house of Chengra Munda. The miscreants told them that they were not criminals but they were the protectors of forests and they began to demand money from the villagers. On refusal they took away some sarees from the house of the informant, clothes and cash from the house of Chengra Munda and others. They also molested Sunita Mundain.

Thereafter they asked the informant to guide them to the neighbouring village Kera Jharia and they also looted away several other articles and cash from the house of several villagers. They warned the informant and other not disclose about the occurrence to anyone.

3. Altogether 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to prove the case P.W. 4 identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade as well as in the dock also as one of the miscreant.

4. Mr. P.D. Agarwal learned counsel appearing for the appellant has very fairly submitted that in view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution there is nothing, much to argue in defence and, therefore, he confined his prayer for reduction in sentence. He submits that since the occurrence is of 1994 i.e. about 10 years back and since the appellant was remanded to the Jail custody on 27-1-1995 and thereby he has remained in jail for about two and half years, therefore, in the circumstances, he prays that a lenient view may be taken so far as the sentence is concerned.

5. In that view of the matter, conviction under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code passed against the appellant by the trial Court is confirmed.

6. So far as the sentence awarded by the trial Court is concerned considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and for the ends of justice, the same is reduced to the period already undergone and the appellant is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.

7. In the result this appeal is dismissed with the modification of sentence as aforesaid.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2003 Same Parties Umesh Kumar Singh Alias Umesh Singh vs State of Bihar Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Amareshwar Sahay, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 395

Criminal