Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Deepak Roshan, J., modified the sentence of the trial court to the extent in lieu of compensation which should be paid to the victim-wife.

In the pertinent case, the petitioner moved to this Court against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence whereby the petitioners were found guilty for offence punishable under Section 498-A of Penal Code, 1860 and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 18 months and fine of Rs 1000 each has been affirmed.

The counsel for the petitioners, J.P. Pandey, submitted that there are contradictions in prosecution witnesses and the allegations made in the FIR does not corroborate with the evidence of the informant hence, the petitioners deserve to be acquitted. Further, the petitioners have remained in custody for about one month as such some leniency may be granted by this Court.

The Court held that it cannot interfere with the findings of the courts below due to the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the conviction against the petitioners are confirmed. With respect to the sentence, the Court observed that the incident is of the year 2004 and 15 years have elapsed and the petitioners have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 15 years and also remained in custody for 36 days. The court was of the view that it may not be proper for this Court to send the accused persons back to prison and found that it is expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence should be modified in lieu of compensation which should be paid to the victim-wife. Hence, the Court modified the impugned order to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of fine of Rs 5000 each failing which they shall serve the rest of the sentence as directed by the trial court. [Santosh Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 1453, decided on 18-10-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. disposed of the revision petition saying that the Court did not find any ground to condone such delay of over eleven years as there was absolutely no explanation that came from the petitioners.

The petitioners approached the Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 11-09-2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2004, by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Khagaria which upheld the judgment passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in GR No. 726 of 1996.

The limitation for filing the present Revision Application had expired on 10-12-2006. The limitation was not condoned though the application was admitted for hearing as the application was filed defect free. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that being labourers, they had gone out of the State to earn their livelihood as the case filed was under bailable sections. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to local rivalry, they have been falsely implicated and that the injuries were simple in nature.

After considering the averments made in the Interlocutory Application, the Court found that there was absolutely no explanation for such unexplained and inordinate delay of over 11 years except the fact that the case was filed under bailable sections, and under the garb of such reasoning the petitioners had gone outside the State for earning their livelihood and did not know about the present case and only after warrant was issued on 08.02.2018, they had taken steps for filing the present revision application.

The Court further held that the petitioners after lodging of the case had gone outside the State and had no knowledge about further proceeding is patently false, for the reason, that after the conviction, an appeal was filed on their behalf which has also stood dismissed. Thus, the conduct of the petitioners denotes sheer casualness on their part.

The Court found that the judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court was sound, and based on properly appreciated evidence. Thus, it does not find any ground to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. However, after taking into account the fact that the dispute arose due to grazing of cattle and the injury suffered was simple in nature, the Court held that since the petitioners had already undergone incarceration for over five months, the sentence needed to be modified.

In view of the above-noted facts, the instant petition was disposed of accordingly without interfering with the order of conviction but modifying the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. [Bhagwan Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1490, decided on 29-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mukta Gupta, J. set aside the order of Additional District Magistrate as he failed to impose a sentence of imprisonment as provided under Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.

The petitioner was the first offender in a case of bonded labour. The victim was employed by the respondent but was not paid wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Thus, it was presumed that employment of the victim was a bonded labour. Holding the petitioner guilty under Section 16, the Additional District Magistrate directed him to pay a fine of Rs 2000. The petitioner paid the said fine. Subsequently, the Additional District Magistrate passed another order wherein he reviewed his previous order and awarded a punishment of 15 days imprisonment along with the fine. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mohammed Zakir v. Shabana, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 819 to hold that a criminal court doesn’t have power to review its order except for typographical/clerical mistakes under Section 362 CrPC. In Court’s view, non-imposition of a sentence for a term could not be said to be a typographical/clerical error; therefore the review order was sans jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was observed as evident that the sentence prescribed under Section 16 was both imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and a fine that may extend to Rs 2000. Thus, while passing the original order, the trial court committed an error as the sentence of imprisonment as required by the section was not awarded to the petitioner. Resultantly, the order Additional District Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for hearing the petitioner on quantum of sentence and passing appropriate order. [Bhagwat Singh Meena v. State (NCT of Delhi),2018 SCC OnLine Del 10802, dated 14-08-2018]