Chandan Kumar v. State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.668 of 2006 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) =========================================================== Chandan Kumar son of Mohan Ram, resident of At, P.O. + P.S. Dalmianagar, District Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s With =========================================================== Criminal Revision No. 710 of 2006 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) =========================================================== Ranjeet Jha @ Ranjeet Kumar Jha son of Shri Liladhar Jha, resident of Muhalla Darwani Line, Qr. No.CL/905, Post office Dalmianagar, District Rohtas (Sasaram) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

(In CR. REV. No. 668 of 2006) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansuman, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.

(In CR. REV. No. 710 of 2006) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-01-2016 The Petitioners seek revision of the judgment of conviction dated 28.3.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas, Sasaram in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2006 with Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2006, by which he has upheld the conviction of the Petitioner and maintained the sentence of 3 years R.I. under Section 392 I.P.C. and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which simple

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.668 of 2006 dt.21-01-2016 2/2 imprisonment for another three months, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sasaram in G.R. case No.1906 of 2004 (Trial No.1925 of 2006) arising out of Dehri (Dalmia Nagar) P.S. case No.373 of 2006 by judgment dated 6.2.2006.

Having gone through the impugned judgment, I do not find any reason for interference. However, considering the period of custody of the Petitioners as also the date of occurrence, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them. However, they are required to deposit the fine as directed by the Court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they shall be sentenced to imprisonment as directed by the court below.

With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the revision applications stand dismissed.

(Anjana Prakash, J) Narendra/- U T