Hasman Sai Vs. State of Bihar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1008479
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnJul-26-2013
AppellantHasman Sai
RespondentState of Bihar
Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cr. rev. no. 148 of 1998 (r) ------- 1. hasman sai 2. radhe shyam singh . petitioners -versus- the state of jharkhand & anr. ..... opposite parties ------- coram : honble mr. justice h.c.mishra ------ for the petitioners : : m/s. d.k.prasad, advocate for the opposite parties : : m/s. a.p.p. ------- 11/ 26.07.2013 this case has a chequered history. this revision application was admitted by order dated 7.9.1998 and the petitioners were directed to be released on bail, but subsequently due to non-compliance of the order dated 18.1.1999 this case stood dismissed and the lower court records were accordingly, sent back, but the case was restored to its original file by order dated 13.03.2013 passed in cr.m.p. no. 2432 of 2012.2. this application is directed against the judgment dated 9.6.1998 passed by the learned viiith a.j.c., ranchi, in cr. appeal no.62 of 1998, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by sri v. prasad, learned judicial magistrate, ranchi, in g.r. no.2712 of 1992 / t.r. no.432 of 1997, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offence under sections 25(1-b) and 26 of the arms act. the offence relates to 31.7.1992 itself, when the petitioners were apprehended along with the fire arms.3. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 radhe shyam singh, that after the dismissal of this application for non-compliance of the order dated 18.1.1999, on the strength of permanent warrant issued by the court below, the said petitioner was taken into custody on 22.5.2012. thereafter, cr.m.p. no. 2432 of 2012 was filed in this court by the arrested petitioner only, for restoration of the revision application. the said criminal misc. petition was allowed by order dated 13.03.2013, but the entire criminal revision was restored to its original file. subsequently, by order dated 25.4.2013 passed in this application, both the petitioners were granted bail, though the petitioner hasman sai had not yet been arrested, as this fact could not be pointed out at the time of passing the bail order on 25.4.2013.4. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the permanent warrant issued by the court below against petitioner hasman sai is still in force and he is still absconding. learned counsel, at the very outset submitted that he cannot press the application as regards petitioner no.1 hasman sai, as he is not holding his brief.5. when this case was taken up for hearing today, it again transpired that the order dated 18.1.1999, for the non-compliance of which the revision was earlier dismissed, has not yet been complied with, and there is no explanation -2- as to why the said order dated 18.9.1998 was not complied with. in the backdrop of these facts this case cannot be decided on its merits.6. faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner radhe shyam singh submitted that he shall not argue the case on merits, but he has submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1992 itself, i.e., more than 21 years now, and no useful purpose is going to be served by compelling the petitioner to undergo the remaining part of the sentence at this belated stage.7. in view of the peculiar and exceptional facts and circumstances of this case, i think it proper to exercise the inherent power under section 482 of the cr.p.c., in the ends of justice, and to impose fine upon the petitioner radhe shyam singh for the remaining part of his substantive sentence of imprisonment. accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner no.2 radhe shyam singh only, is hereby, kept at abeyance, and he is directed to make the payment of fine of rs.10,000/- in lieu of the remaining part of his sentence of imprisonment. if the petitioner radhe shyam singh makes the payment of fine of rs.10,000/- within the period of three months from today, in lieu of the remaining part of his sentence of imprisonment, he shall be discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. in case he fails in making the payment of fine as directed, within the time allowed by this court, the sentence passed by the trial court below shall continue to be in force and the court below shall cancel his bail bond and issue the process compelling the production of the petitioner in the court below, for serving out the remaining part of the sentence passed by the trial court below.8. this application stands dismissed as regards the absconding petitioner no.1 hasman sai.9. with these directions, the application of the petitioner no.2 radhe shyam singh stands disposed of. let the lower court records be sent back forthwith, along with the copy of this order. (h.c.mishra, j.) d.s.
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 148 of 1998 (R) ------- 1. Hasman Sai 2. Radhe Shyam Singh . Petitioners -Versus- The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties ------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------ For the Petitioners : : M/s. D.K.Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : : M/s. A.P.P. ------- 11/ 26.07.2013 This case has a chequered history. This revision application was admitted by order dated 7.9.1998 and the petitioners were directed to be released on bail, but subsequently due to non-compliance of the order dated 18.1.1999 this case stood dismissed and the Lower Court Records were accordingly, sent back, but the case was restored to its original file by order dated 13.03.2013 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2432 of 2012.

2. This application is directed against the Judgment dated 9.6.1998 passed by the learned VIIIth A.J.C., Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No.62 of 1998, dismissing the appeal filed against the Judgment and Order passed by Sri V. Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in G.R. No.2712 of 1992 / T.R. No.432 of 1997, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offence under Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act. The offence relates to 31.7.1992 itself, when the petitioners were apprehended along with the fire arms.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 Radhe Shyam Singh, that after the dismissal of this application for non-compliance of the order dated 18.1.1999, on the strength of permanent warrant issued by the Court below, the said petitioner was taken into custody on 22.5.2012. Thereafter, Cr.M.P. No. 2432 of 2012 was filed in this Court by the arrested petitioner only, for restoration of the revision application. The said Criminal Misc. Petition was allowed by order dated 13.03.2013, but the entire criminal revision was restored to its original file. Subsequently, by order dated 25.4.2013 passed in this application, both the petitioners were granted bail, though the petitioner Hasman Sai had not yet been arrested, as this fact could not be pointed out at the time of passing the bail order on 25.4.2013.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the permanent warrant issued by the Court below against petitioner Hasman Sai is still in force and he is still absconding. Learned Counsel, at the very outset submitted that he cannot press the application as regards petitioner No.1 Hasman Sai, as he is not holding his brief.

5. When this case was taken up for hearing today, it again transpired that the order dated 18.1.1999, for the non-compliance of which the revision was earlier dismissed, has not yet been complied with, and there is no explanation -2- as to why the said order dated 18.9.1998 was not complied with. In the backdrop of these facts this case cannot be decided on its merits.

6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner Radhe Shyam Singh submitted that he shall not argue the case on merits, but he has submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1992 itself, i.e., more than 21 years now, and no useful purpose is going to be served by compelling the petitioner to undergo the remaining part of the sentence at this belated stage.

7. In view of the peculiar and exceptional facts and circumstances of this case, I think it proper to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., in the ends of justice, and to impose fine upon the petitioner Radhe Shyam Singh for the remaining part of his substantive sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed against the petitioner No.2 Radhe Shyam Singh only, is hereby, kept at abeyance, and he is directed to make the payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of the remaining part of his sentence of imprisonment. If the petitioner Radhe Shyam Singh makes the payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- within the period of three months from today, in lieu of the remaining part of his sentence of imprisonment, he shall be discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. In case he fails in making the payment of fine as directed, within the time allowed by this Court, the sentence passed by the Trial Court below shall continue to be in force and the Court below shall cancel his bail bond and issue the process compelling the production of the petitioner in the Court below, for serving out the remaining part of the sentence passed by the Trial Court below.

8. This application stands dismissed as regards the absconding petitioner No.1 Hasman Sai.

9. With these directions, the application of the petitioner No.2 Radhe Shyam Singh stands disposed of. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith, along with the copy of this order. (H.C.Mishra, J.) D.S.