EKRAM AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
LAWS(JHAR)-2013-7-122
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on
July 12,2013
Ekram Ahmad
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.)The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 4th September 1999 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga, in Cr. Appeal No. 106 of 1997 / 19 of 1997, whereby, the appeal filed against the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.1997 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in G.R No. 248 of 1992 / T.R No. 384 of 1997 has been dismissed by the Appellate Court below with modification in sentence. It may be stated that the Trial Court had found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and had convicted him for the same. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the Trial Court found that though there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was not the first offender, but sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 406 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 420 IPC and both the sentences were directed to run consecutively. In the appeal filed against the said Judgment, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were set aside, but the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 IPC was maintained, but his sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and with this modification in sentence, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has nothing to argue on the merits of the case, rather he confined his arguments only on the point of sentence of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner was wrongly not given the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., even though, the petitioner is the first offender. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the petitioner being the first offender, be given the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C.
(3.)Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.
(2.)The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 4th September 1999 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga, in Cr. Appeal No. 106 of 1997 / 19 of 1997, whereby, the appeal filed against the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.1997 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in G.R No. 248 of 1992 / T.R No. 384 of 1997 has been dismissed by the Appellate Court below with modification in sentence. It may be stated that the Trial Court had found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and had convicted him for the same. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the Trial Court found that though there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was not the first offender, but sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 406 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 420 IPC and both the sentences were directed to run consecutively. In the appeal filed against the said Judgment, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were set aside, but the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 IPC was maintained, but his sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and with this modification in sentence, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has nothing to argue on the merits of the case, rather he confined his arguments only on the point of sentence of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner was wrongly not given the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., even though, the petitioner is the first offender. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the petitioner being the first offender, be given the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C.
(3.)Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.