Jharkhand High Court
Dhananjay Shekhar vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 18 July, 2022
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 229 of 2006
1. Dhananjay Shekhar
2. Nand Dulal Chatterjee ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
With
Cr. Revision No. 425 of 2006
Narendra Kumar Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Shekhar, Advocate (Cr. Rev. 229/2006) Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate (Cr. Rev. 425/2006) For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP (Cr. Rev. 229/2006) Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP (Cr. Rev. 425/2006)
--------
05/ 18.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Both applications arise out of common judgment and are interconnected, as such same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. At the outset, Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in criminal revision No.425 of 2006 draws attention of this Court towards the I.A. No.412 of 2007 which has been filed informing this Court that the petitioner- Narendra Kumar Singh has died on 04.12.2006 itself, as such the case abates against the petitioner in Cr. Revision No.425 of 2006.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, criminal revision No.425 of 2006 is dismissed as abated. Consequently, I.A. No.412 of 2007 stands disposed of.
5. Mr. Ashish Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the 2 petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 229 of 2006 submits that now even petitioner No.1 Dhananjay Shekhar has died as such the instant application will also abate against the petitioner No.1 of Cr. Revision No. 229 of 2006.
6. Thus, so far as Cr. Revision No.229 of 2006 is concerned, this application is also dismissed as abated against petitioner No.1-Dhananjay Shekhar.
7. Criminal revision application No. 229 of 2006 is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2006, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Bokaro, in criminal appeal No. 96 of 2004, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2004, passed in C.M.A. No.1 of 1997, corresponding to T.R. No. 164 of 2004, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro, whereby the petitioner No.2-Nand Dulal Chatterjee (Cr. Revision No.229 of 2006) was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years under Section 72-C(1) of the Mines Act and six months simple imprisonment under Section 72 (a) of the Mines Act, 1952, has been sustained.
8. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant namely, C.B. Prasad, Deputy Director of Mines Safety is that in between 12.30 mid night of 4th February 1996 to 8.00 A.M. of 5th February 1996 i.e. 3rd shift of 4th February, 1996 cross cut level 3 development face beyond 3rd connection in south west section of No.15 seam through no.1 and 2 pits of North Amlabad Project there was casualty inside the mines and two persons i.e. Prem Nath and Kurban Mian who were Overman and Mining Sardar respectively lost their life due to leakage of methane gas and deficit of oxygen. The incident came to the knowledge of the Inspector on 5.2.1996. It is further alleged that during the said inspection and enquiry, the enquiry team found following violation on the part of accused persons are caused the said occurrence:
i) Contravention of provisions of Regulation 130 (1) read with Regulation 41 (1) (a) of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957.
ii) Contravention of provision of Regulation 130 (1) read with Regulation 41(1) (a) of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 read with section-18 (5) of the Mines Act.
iii) Contravention of provision of Regulation 43 (6) read with Regulation 142 (3) of Coal Mines Regulation 1957.
iv) Contravention of provision of Regulation 44 (6) (a) read with Regulation 142 (3).
It is further alleged that the contravention of above four points constitute offence which is punishable under Section 72 /A of Mines Act, 1952 and also under Section 72 /C (1) (a) of the Mines Act, 1952.
4
After investigation, police submitted chargesheet and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner; for which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioner was found guilty for the offences and he was convicted and his appeal was also rejected by the learned appellate court.
9. Mr. Ashish Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioner remained in custody for about 15 days and he is aged about 66 years and during entire period of bail, he never misused the privilege of bail, as such the sentence may be modified.
10. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments including the lower courts records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby sustained.
12. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from 5 record that the incident is of the year 1997 and 25 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 25 years. Further, petitioner No.2 in Cr. Revision No.229 of 2006 remained in custody for about 15 days and now he is aged about 66 years and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail.
13. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to prison and interest of justice would be sufficed by modifying the sentence in lieu of fine.
14. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner No.2 in Cr. Revision No. 229 of 2006 is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-. The amount shall be deposited before the Secretary D.L.S.A, Bokaro within four months from today.
15. With the aforesaid observation and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.
16. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds, subject to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-.
17. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary DLSA, Bokaro and the petitioner No.2 Nand Dulal Chatterjee (Cr. Revision No.229 of 2006) through 6 officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
18. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/