2026:JHHC:17134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1316 of 2016 -------- 1. Pullin Mandal @ Pullin Bihari Mandal, son of Bhupendra Mandal 2. Dina Mandal, son of Sudhir Mandal Both residents of Rangasola, P.O. & P.S.-Bindapathar, District- Jamtara ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- Dated: 12th June, 2026 By Court 1. Heard Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.07.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2011 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 25.02.2011, passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Madhupur, in GOCR Case No. 07 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act, 1966, and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year along with a fine of Rs.1000/- each with default stipulation. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 24.01.2001 at 2026:JHHC:17134 2 12:00 hours, a raid and search were conducted by RPF/Township at village Rangasola, Dangalpara, P.S.-Bindapathar, presently in District- Jamtara. During the raid, when the police reached near the house compound of Pullin Mandal they saw that some persons were dealing and handling with railway iron materials. The police apprehended Pullin Mandal at the spot, but others managed to escape. On search, a huge quantity of railway iron materials was recovered i.e. 3 nos. of CST-9 plates, 10 nos. of two-way keys, 2 noms. of Rly Fish plates, 2 noms. of iron channel about 30 - 32 feet each, 53 noms. of iron pipes at about 1 inch dia measuring about 18 – 20 feet each, 13 noms. of iron pipes of dia about 2.5" length about 18"-20"feet each. On being asked the arrested person failed to produce any valid document or give to satisfactory reply about the said recovered iron materials. Rather he confessed that he along with others had stolen the said materials from CLW workshop area. Hence, the said materials were seized and seizure list was prepared in the absence of the available witnesses and the persons arrested brought to RPF/TS post and this case was instituted against the both above named accused persons. 4. After enquiry, the concerning E.O. has found the allegations against both accused persons to be true and submitted prosecution report against them for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. Thereafter, the learned court took cognizance for the same vide order dated 13.07.2001. 5. Charge under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act has been framed and explained to the accused persons 2026:JHHC:17134 3 in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution and several documentary evidences were also adduced. 7. On behalf of defence, two witnesses were also examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced. 8. After conclusion of trial the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated above against which they filed appeal which was also dismissed by upholding the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. It is alleged that the petitioners were dealing with railway iron materials worth Rs.11,000/- which were seized from in front of their house and subsequently, delivered to the Railway Department pursuant to the order of the Court. It is further submitted that it was first offence of the petitioners, but they have not been extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act without recording any reasons by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court in view of value of property, the nature of offence committed by the petitioners and particularly the fact that this was their first offence, the petitioners deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.1 has remained in custody for two months and the petitioner No.2 for three months during the 2026:JHHC:17134 4 pendency of the trial of the case and they have also deposited the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- each. Petitioner No.1 is presently about 80 years old and the petitioner No.2 is about 65 years old. Therefore, a lenient view may be taken regarding the sentence and the petitioners may be released by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 10. On the other hand, learned A.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 petitioners, hence, appropriate order may be passed after dismissing the revision petition. 11. I have gone through the impugned judgments of court below in the light of rival contentions of the respective parties. 12. It appears that learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioners on the basis of evidence available on record and learned Appellate Court has rightly upheld the judgment of conviction. But at the same time it also appears that it was the first offence of the petitioners. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the petitioners as well as railway property involved in this case which is already been delivered to the railway department and their age, character and antecedents, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to grant benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners instead of undergoing the substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial 2026:JHHC:17134 5 Court and upheld by the appellate court. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners 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 petitioners are concerned, is modified and the trial court is directed to release the petitioners extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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. 15. 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. 16. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioners shall be called upon to receive the sentence of imprisonment already awarded to them by the concerned trial Court. 17. In view of above discussion and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 18. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 19. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned court immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 12.06.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 19/06/2026