Criminal Revision No. 1061 of 2012 · Patna High Court · 2006

After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, as also for the reasons disclosed in the present interlocutory application, the delay occurred in filing the main criminal revision application is hereby condoned. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. Criminal Revision No.1061 of 2012 By the order dated 09.10.2012 the lower court records were called for, which have, now, been received by this Court. With the consent of the parties, this criminal revision application has been taken up for final disposal. The petitioner was convicted for charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and order dated 27th September 2006 passed in G.R. No. 603 of 1997/ Trial No. 210 of 2006 by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, and Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1061 of 2012 (3) dt.11-12-201 he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in case of default in payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of two months. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, preferred Cr. Appeal No. 110 of 2006, which was finally heard and dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 21st April 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar. Hence, the present revision application. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present case is that one Sk. Md. Hussain lodged a criminal case on 19.03.1997 with respect to an occurrence dated 15.03.1997 alleging therein that while the informant was at Railway Station, Katihar for purchasing ticket for going to Delhi, the petitioner duped him and cheated Rs. 500/-. On close of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC. On cognizance being taken, he was put on trial before the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. In support of the prosecution case, two witnesses were examined, out of them P.W.2 Sk. Md. Hussain is the informant and P.W. 1 Sk. Md. Sallo is the person, who was present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer of the present case was not examined during the course of trial. It is also submitted that the case was lodged after four days, which creates grave doubt about the bonafide of the prosecution case. It is also contended that there is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner except Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1061 of 2012 (3) dt.11-12-201 the present one. It was lastly contended that during the course of trial the petitioner remained in judicial custody since 20.03.1997 to 29.05.1997. Whereafter he was released on bail. According to the learned counsel, after dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner, he has surrendered in the court below on 31.08.2012 and since then he is undergoing the period of sentence imposed upon him. According to the learned counsel, the maximum sentence imposed upon the petitioner is of one year and the petitioner has already undergone period of incarceration for more than five months. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made in the present criminal revision application. It is submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned lower appellate court and, therefore, by a concurrent judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court as also by the learned lower appellate court, the petitioner has been convicted for charge under Section 420 IPC. However, it was fairly conceded on behalf of the State that only two witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after going through the record, has fairly submitted that there appears to be no other criminal case pending against the petitioner. After having heard the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court, which has been affirmed by the learned lower appellate court. No procedural irregularity or legal infirmity has been pointed out with respect to the judgments passed by the learned trial court as also by the learned lower appellate court. While exercising the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1061 of 2012 (3) dt.11-12-201 revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not required to reappraise the evidence of the witnesses for coming to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded against the petitioner. However, the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1997 and since then more than 15 years have elapsed. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have cheated only Rs. 500/- from the informant. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, besides others, this Court is inclined to reduce the period of sentence from one year to six months. Accordingly, the present revision application dismissed, but the order of sentence is modified and is reduced from one year to six months. On completion of period of six months of custody, the petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other criminal case. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall be granted the benefit of set off as prescribed under Section 428 of the Cr. P. C. The revision application stands finally disposed of with the modification in sentence as also with the observations and directions made above. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/-