2026:JHHC:16822 Cr. Rev. No. 1035 of 2017 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 2017 …… 1. Md. Hadis @ Md. Hadish Ansari s/o Alimuddin Ansari 2. Md. Irfan, son of Hadis Ansari. Both resident of village Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S. Burmu District Ranchi. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party …… For the Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER Dated- 11.06.2026 By Court:- Since I.A. No. 7986 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioners for grant of bail. 2. The petitioners are already on bail vide order dated 06.10.2017. 3. Therefore, I.A. No. 7986 of 2017 is disposed of as infructuous in terms of order dated 06.10.2017. 4. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2026:JHHC:16822 Cr. Rev. No. 1035 of 2017 Page | 2 5. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.06.2017 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, XVII at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2012, whereby and whereunder learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by upholding the conviction and modifying the sentence which was passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in R.P. Case No. 34 of 2003 (T.R. Case No.451 of 2011), under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one and a half years each along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation. 6. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision, on the basis of a written complaint dated 29.06.2003 submitted by Sub- Inspector Deepak Kumar, Patratu R.P.F. Post Case No. 18/2003 was instituted under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, is that acting upon secret information regarding concealment of stolen railway materials in Village Chekme Barwatoli, an R.P.F. team conducted a raid and found several persons engaged in hiding railway steel sleepers in a dry pond. Upon chase, the miscreants attempted to flee away, but two persons, namely 2026:JHHC:16822 Cr. Rev. No. 1035 of 2017 Page | 3 Md. Irfan Ansari and Md. Hadis Ansari, were apprehended. It is further alleged that from the place of occurrence, a substantial quantity of railway materials, including steel slide chair sleepers, steel through sleepers and steel crossing sleepers, was recovered and seized. The apprehended persons failed to produce any lawful authority for possession of the said materials and allegedly admitted that the same were stolen from railway property. They further disclosed the involvement of one Hafiz Miyan @ Shamim, stated to be the kingpin of the operation. 7. On the basis of written complaint petition by complainant S.I. Deepak Kumar Patratu R.P.F. Post Case No.18 of 2003 dated 29.06.2003 under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was registered. Inquiry was followed by S.I. Nehal Ahmed which culminated into prosecution report dated 02.11.2003 submitted to the Court whereby the case of abovementioned accused persons were forwarded for holding trial. Accordingly, cognizance was taken. Charges were framed against the appellant for the aforesaid offence which was read over and explained to them, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 2026:JHHC:16822 Cr. Rev. No. 1035 of 2017 Page | 4 8. In the course of trial, altogether five witnesses were examined and several documentary evidence were also adduced by the prosecution. 9. On the other hand, defence has examined four witnesses and also adduced several documentary evidence. 10. Learned Trial Court has convicted and sentence the accused persons under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act against which the petitioners have filed appeal which was dismissed by upholding the conviction and modifying the sentence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons were held guilty for the offence under Section 3 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act for stealing railway slippers and keeping it concealed in Village Chekme Barwatoli worth Rs. 38,000/-. One of the co-accused was acquitted from the charge by the learned Trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2012 preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed vide judgment dated 15.06.2017. Petitioner No.1 is aged about 75 years and petitioner No.2 has also reached to the age of about 53 years. The petitioners are 2026:JHHC:16822 Cr. Rev. No. 1035 of 2017 Page | 5 not contesting the impugned judgments on merits but so far as sentence awarded to the petitioners is concerned, the case was initiated in the year 2003. Admittedly, petitioners have no criminal antecedent at the time of their conviction and sentence and subsequently up to also they have never involved in any other criminal activities. The petitioners have also undergone about one month's custody during pendency of the trial of the case. Therefore, sufficiently punished for their guilt. The property allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioners has also been handed over to the Railway Department by order of the Court. The fine amount has already been deposited by the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances, the imprisonment awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by him instead of maximum sentence of one year awarded by the learned Appellate Court after modifying the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. 12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as 2026:JHHC:16822 Cr. Rev. No. 1035 of 2017 Page | 6 well as learned Appellate Court regarding guilt of the petitioners for unlawful possession of railway property without offering any valid reasons. They have been awarded minimum sentence as prescribed under law. Hence, there is no justification for any interference in this criminal revision which is fit to be dismissed. 13. I have gone through the impugned judgments along with the record of the case in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 14. It appears that plea of first offence, no other previous conviction and age taken by petitioners at the time of hearing on quantum of sentence but has been rejected by learned Trial Court only on the ground of serious of offence by petitioners. It is also a fact that the petitioners have never been previously convicted for any other offence. The incident was of the year 2003 and more than two decades have been passed since the date of commission of offence. It is also pleaded that the petitioners in the aforesaid period have also maintained peace and harmony and have never been involved in any other criminal activities. I find that the 2026:JHHC:16822 Cr. Rev. No. 1035 of 2017 Page | 7 petitioners deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the petitioners, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioners, for which the petitioners appear to be entitled, instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment. 16. In view of the above, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners by learned Trial Court and modified by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioners are hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for 2026:JHHC:16822 Cr. Rev. No. 1035 of 2017 Page | 8 maintaining peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 17. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the petitioners to secure their attendance for furnishing the bond. 18. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the learned Trial Court shall call upon the petitioners to serve the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them. 19. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 20. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 11/06/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 15/06/2026