2023:JHHC:7957 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1061 of 2017 --------- Chhutu Singh Sardar @ Chotee Singh Sardar, S/o Late Dubraj Sardar, R/o- vill-Ugma, P.O. & P.S.-Seraikella, Dist.-Seraikella Kharswan, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opp. Party --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. ----------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ---------- Dated: 14th May, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl.P.P. 2. The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 06.10.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No.39 of 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.04.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Civil Courts, Seraikella-Kharsawan at Seraikella under section 414 of IPC directing to undergo R.I. for three years has been upheld in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 66 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.679 of 2011. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on secret information by the informer on 30.08.2011 at about 6:00 pm that Md. Hussain, Chhotu Singh Sardar and Raju Satpathy are roaming on a stolen motorcycle and threatening to the people, Manoj Kumar Tiwary, Officer-in-charge, Seriakella P.S. along with other police personnel reached near Dungri on patrolling duty. It is alleged that the informer also told him that all three persons had proceeded towards Tantoposi 2023:JHHC:7957 Cr. Revision No.1061 of 2017 2 and would return back after few hours by the stolen motorcycle. On the above information, the informant began to take a vigil of those persons and at about 7:20 pm, two persons riding on the motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH05D-9517 Bajaj Discover were intercepted by the police personnels and apprehended. The accused persons disclosed their name as Md. Hussain and Chhotu Singh Sardar. It is further alleged that on enquiry of ownership of said vehicle, they failed to produce any document. The number plate of the said vehicle was also changed and written as JH05D-9157. Further, they have disclosed that the above vehicle was purchased with the help of one Raju Satpathy from Md. Yakub for Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter, the motorcycle was seized and seizure list was prepared. 4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Seraikella P.S. Case No.66 of 2011 was instituted for the offence under section 414 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including this petitioner. On the above, learned court pleased to take cognizance of offence against the accused person and charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused person in Hindi, to which accused persons including this petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution has examined altogether 6 witnesses in this case and several documentary evidences have also been adduced. 6. On the other hand, the statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the accused persons denied the allegation made against them. 2023:JHHC:7957 Cr. Revision No.1061 of 2017 3 7. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted two accused persons and convicted this petitioner including one Md. Hussain. The petitioner and another convict Md. Hussain filed Cr. Appeal against their conviction before Dist. & Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella. The learned appellate Court has also upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioner along with another convict. Against which, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision. Submission on behalf of petitioner:- 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for three years R.I. for the offence under Section 414 of the IPC. It appears from the judgments of learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court that it was the first offence of the petitioner and in spite of specific pleading, the petitioner has not been extended the benefit of section 3/4 of Probation of Offenders Act without recording specific reasons. The simple reason recorded by the learned trial Court is that it would not be proper to accord him benefit of Probation of Offenders Act considering the nature of offence and circumstances under which it has been committed, therefore, the learned trial Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. The reason recorded by the learned trial Court is absolutely not justifiable under law and cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the petitioner deserves the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Moreover, the occurrence is of the year 2011 and one and half decades have elapsed and the petitioner has 2023:JHHC:7957 Cr. Revision No.1061 of 2017 4 maintained peace and have settled in his life. Hence, the petitioner may be extended benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Submission on behalf of the State: - 9. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits but on the point of non-extension of the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, it is fairly admitted that it was the first offence of the petitioner, hence, appropriate order may be passed after dismissing the revision petition. Analysis, Reasons and Decision: - 10. I have gone through the impugned judgments of court below in the light of rival contentions of the respective parties. 11. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgments has confined himself towards the grant of benefit of provision of Probation of Offenders Act and no objection has been raised by the learned Spl.P.P., therefore, I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as well as Appellate Cout and it appears that at the point of hearing on sentence, specific plea was taken by the petitioner that it was the first offence of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner may be released on probation bond giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner is hereby upheld but so far as the sentence awarded by the learned trial court and upheld by learned appellate court to the above- named petitioner is concerned, is modified and the trial court is directed to release the petitioner extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five 2023:JHHC:7957 Cr. Revision No.1061 of 2017 5 Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, within two months, from the date of this order, with condition to maintain peace and good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 13. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the petitioner to secure his attendance for furnishing the bond. 14. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioner shall be called upon to receive the sentence of imprisonment already awarded to him by the concerned trial court. 15. In view of above discussion and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above 16. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court for information and needful, immediately. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 14/05/2026 Basant Uploaded On 19/05/2026