Janardan Thakur ….. … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Anand Kumar Mesram 3. General Manager Lime Plant
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2348 of 2021 ------- Janardan Thakur ….. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Anand Kumar Mesram 3. General Manager Lime Plant Tata Steel Ltd. ….. ….Opposite Parties CORAM For the Petitioner For the Opposite Party-State For the O.P.No.2
Legal Reasoning
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- :Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Adv. :Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP :Mr. A.K. Das, Adv. Ms. Swati Shalini, Adv. ……… 19/02.03.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for recall/modification of the order dated 25.10.2019 passed in criminal revision No. 555/2013, whereby this Court has directed to the petitioner (herein O.P.No.2 ) to pay amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight lakhs) within a period of seven months from the date of order and on that basis petitioner was directed to be released for the period already undergone. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the aforesaid order till date the O.P.No.2 has not paid a single penny, as such the aforesaid order may be modified to the extent that the sentence of the O.P.No.2 should be sustained which was passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court. 4. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 tries to justify the delay in paying of Rs. Eight lakhs as directed by this Court, however from the entire order-sheet it appears that the O.P.No.2 has not only twist the petitioner but also mislead this Court by making false submission at different stage in person. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 further submits that at present due to personal difficulties he is not able to come before this Court. 5. Having regard to the facts of the case and after going through the records, it appears that the criminal revision application no.555/2013
Decision
was disposed of with the following order/ direction:- “On a query by this Court to the effect that whether the petitioner can pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Principal Rs.4,31,000 + interest for 12 years), both the parties agreed to a term that the petitioner shall pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.8,00,000/- within a reasonable period. facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned counsel for the aforesaid view of In 2 the petitioner is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of seven months from today. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The petitioner is at liberty to pay the entire amount even prior to the stipulated date, however, the entire payment must be paid on or before 30th May, 2020. If the petitioner fails to comply with this order and pay the entire amount as agreed then he shall surrender before the learned trial court to serve rest of the sentence. With the aforesaid modifications and directions, this revision application is disposed of. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of the aforesaid condition.” 6. After going through the order passed in the revision application and also after perusing few orders passed in the instant Cr.M.P indicates that the O.P.No.2 has only made false submission before this Court. In this regard order dated 25.3.2022 is referred to hereinbelow:- “Heard through V.C. 2. Order dated 21.2.2022 reads as under: for the period “07/21.02.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant criminal miscellaneous application was preferred for modifying the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by this court in Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2013, whereby the sentence was modified to the extent that the petitioner of the revision application was sentenced to undergo already undergone, subject to the condition that the petitioner will pay Rs.8 lac to the opposite party no.2 (petitioner herein) within a period of seven months from the date of order, i.e. from 25.10.2019. 3. Since that case the petitioner of (Opposite party no.2 herein) did not pay even a single penny, the petitioner herein filed the instant application. 4. The Opposite Party No. 2 herein, namely Anand Kumar Mesram is present today in person and submits that due to the economic slowdown as a result of Corona pandemic he was unable to manage and pay Rs. 8 lacs to the petitioner. However, he assures that he will pay the the entire amount petitioner in instalments for which he intends to file an affidavit. He further assures that he will pay an upfront money to 3 of Rs. 50,000/- by way of demand draft in favour of the petitioner Janardan Thakur on the next date of hearing. 5. It is therefore directed that on the next date of hearing the Opposite Party No.2 shall appear in person along with demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- drawn in the name of petitioner Janardan Thakur. 6. Put up this case on 25.03.2022. 7. It is made clear that if Demand Draft for the aforesaid amount will not be paid to the petitioner on the next date of hearing, then appropriate order will be passed.” 3. However, no demand draft has been paid to the petitioner today. 4. Mr. S.K. Sinha, learned A.P.P. is present for the State. 5. In view of the aforesaid fact, put up this case on 05.04.2022. 6. It is made clear that O.P.No.2 shall remain personally present before this court with the demand draft of Rs.50,000/- drawn in the name of petitioner Janardan Thakur, failing which appropriate order will be passed.” 7. After going through the aforesaid orders it clearly transpires that on the one hand O.P.No.2 is misleading this Court and on the other hand he has not complied the order passed in criminal revision No. 555/2013. However, so far as modification of the order is concerned the same is not required, inasmuch as, the last paragraph of page 2 of the order dated 25.10.2019 passed in revision application clearly indicates that if the petitioner (herein O.P.No.2) fails to comply the order and not pay the entire amount as agreed then he shall surrender before the learned trial court to serve rest of the sentence. As such, there is no need to modify the order. It is clear that since the petitioner has not paid the agreed amount as per direction made in Cr. Rev. No.555/2013 the trial court is hereby directed to proceed in accordance with law. 8. Consequently, the instant application is hereby disposed of. Fahim/- (Deepak Roshan, J.)