2026:JHHC:12009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1358 of 2008 -------- [Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2008, passed in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1995 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chatra,] ------- Upendra Prasad Sharma @ Upendra Sharma, S/o. Late Ramnandan Prasad Sharma, R/o. Dhangartoli, Chatra, P.S.- Chatra, Dist.- Chatra, at present- Panch Mohalla, P.S.- Sadar, Dist.- Chatra. ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, Adv. For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. -------- J U D G M E N T Dated: 23rd April, 2026 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, Learned A.P.P. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1995 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chatra, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 411 of the I.P.C. Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. and imprisonment for Six months alongwith the fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 08.11.1993, the informant police officer received secret information that the appellant has kept Katha biscuits which is stolen property and preparing to transport it by scooter. A search was conducted in the house of the appellant, where the appellant was present in his house. A scooter having without number plate was found in his house, on 2026:JHHC:12009 2 search from scooter, about 10 kgs. katha biscuits were recovered from the front and rear dicky of the scooter. On query about the paper of katha biscuits, the appellant could not produce and the same was seized by the police and registered F.I.R. against the present appellant. 4. On the basis of self-statement of the informant, Chatra P.S. Case No. 260 of 1993 was registered for the offence under Section 379, 411, 413 & 414 of I.P.C. and Section 33 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 20 of the Forest Produce Act. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence under Sections 379, 411, 413 & 414 of I.P.C., Section 33 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 20 of the Forest Produce Act and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1995 was registered. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and sentence has been passed, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of the appellant:- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of this judgment has confined himself towards none extension the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years for the offences under Section 411 of the I.P.C. for possessing 10 kgs. katha which was suspected to be stolen. Although, the seizure list has not been proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that except the informant, no other witness has been examined to corroborate the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the case under Forest Act cannot be instituted on the basis of above and a complaint case was required to be filed by the Forest Department. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that it is the first offence of the appellant and more than three decades have been elapsed from the date of occurrence. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prays 2026:JHHC:12009 3 for releasing the appellant on probation bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant. Submissions on behalf of the State:- 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of the learned Trial Court on merits but so far first offence of the appellant is concerned nothing adverse has been pointed out by prosecution. Analysis, discussions and reasons: - 8. It appears that altogether two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution: - P.W.-1 Jagdish Choubey P.W.-2 Md. Salim Javed Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution:- I. Exhibit-1 Seizure List II. Exhibit -2 Signature of ASI Rajendra Pd. Singh on seizure list III. Exhibit- 2/1 Signature of appellant Upendra Pd. Sharma on seizure list IV. Exhibit-2/2 Signature of PW-2 Md. Salim Javed on seizure list V. Exhibit-2/3 Signature of Fakruddin Miyan on seizure list VI. Exhibit-3 Fardbeyan VII. Exhibit-4 Endorsement on the Fardbeyan 9. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been examined on behalf of defence. 10. It appears that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of witnesses in the light of document and evidence showing possession of appellant of 10 kgs. Katha biscuits without offering any valid explanation. Therefore, conviction of appellant for offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. does not require any interference. It further appears that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any 2026:JHHC:12009 4 reason for not extending the benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. It was the first offence of the appellant, therefore, the appellant deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant is hereby upheld. Therefore, instead of undergoing substantive sentence awarded to the appellant, the appellant is directed appear before the learned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment and the learned trial court shall release the appellant under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 upon his furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with one surety, subject to condition that the appellant shall maintain peace and good behavior for one year. In case of violation of terms and conditions of bond, the appellant shall be called upon to receive the sentence awarded to him. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 13. It is further clarified that if the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellant to secure his attendance for furnishing the bond. 14. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back immediately to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 23.04.2026 Rahul Uploaded on 05/05/2026