IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.460 of 2011
BASKI KUMAR SON OF LATE BANBARI KUMAR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SAHTHA, P.S. BHAGWANPUR,
DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ....PETITIONER.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR. .......OPPOSITE PARTY.
-----------
03. 28.04.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only.
Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State.
With the consent of the parties the present revision
application is being disposed of at this stage itself.
Petitioner herein was put on trial vide T.R. No. 155
of 2000 for the charge(s) punishable under Section 3(a) of the
R.P. (U.P.) Act. Eight witnesses were examined besides
exhibiting documents to prove the charge(s). On a consideration
of the matter, learned trial court (Judicial Magistrate First Class
Kiul) found the petitioner guilty under the aforesaid charge and
sentence to under go R.I. for 1 year. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order, the petitioner preferred appeal no. 167 of
2000. Learned appellant court confirmed the findings of guilt
and dismissed the appeal.
It is submitted that at the time of conviction
petitioner was found aged about 60 years. Occurrence, as per
prosecution case, had taken place on 26.12.1987. The trial of the
petitioner consumed closed to 13 years. Referring to judgment, it
is submitted that there is no past conviction recorded against
him. It is thus submitted that the petitioner deserves lesser
quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s).
Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, submits that there
2
have been concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the court
below, which cannot be said to be perverse and/or illegal.
I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the
parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his
submission that the trial court consumed more than 13 years.
Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of
punishment as during these periods the litigant has to suffer the
rigorous/ordeal of trial and also to face several excruciating
circumstances having telling effects on the economical as well as
mental condition of the litigant. He is further right in his
submission that no previous conviction was found and recorded.
It appears that at the time of recording conviction he was
assessed 60 years of age. Such assessment was made in the year
2000. We are in the year 2011. Obviously petitioner is over 70
years of age. This Court is, thus, satisfied that a lesser quantum
of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would
subserve the ends of justice.
Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and
order of conviction passed by learned trial court and duly
affirmed by the lower appellate court the sentence awarded
thereunder is reduced to R.I. for 04 months. Other
part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, shall remain intact.
With this modification in sentence only, the
application is dismissed.
Devendra/ ( K.K. Mandal, J.)