2026:JHHC:16790 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1136 of 2016 -------- Balchand Saw, S/o. Late Jhinku Saw, R/o. Birsa Chowk, Station Road, Jagarnathpur, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate : Mr. Navnit Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Mrs. Malsi Pathak, A.C. to P.P. Order No. 21 Dated: 11th June, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. 2. Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 210/2013 dated 1st April, 2016, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence of the petitioner Balchand Saw for the offence under Section 3 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act passed by learned Trial Court in Complaint being C-63 of 2005, dated 14.08.2013, the petitioner Balchand Saw was held guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation, has been altered and modified by the learned Appellate Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act, and awarded him to undergo R.I. for one and half years alongwith with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:16790 2 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 1136 of 2016) Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 20.10.2003 at about 10:30 A.M., when the informant alongwith his associates was on patrolling duty and when he reached near Krishna Park, Doranda, he saw four to five persons were standing near a truck, who upon seeing the police party started fleeing away. When they reached at the place and saw that the truck was loaded with iron scraps belonging to railway department and upon enquiry, they found the name of petitioner as owner and one co-accused as driver. The scrap iron was seized and seizure list was prepared. 4. On the basis of above written report, F.I.R. was registered being Doranda P.S. Case No. 287 of 2003 for the offence under Section 414 of the I.P.C. against above named petitioner and one co-accused. 5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 414/120(B) of the I.P.C. 6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi vide order dated 25.05.2005 transferred this case to the Officer-in charge RPF Hatia to make an enquiry in this case and on 05.07.2005 an order was passed directing the Officer-in-charge RPF Hatia to register a case and Case No. 04 of 2005 dated 12.08.2005 under Section 3(a) of R.P.(U.P.) Act was registered against the accused persons. 7. After completion of enquiry, the learned Trial Court took cognizance under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act. Charges were framed under Section 414 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act. 2026:JHHC:16790 3 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 1136 of 2016) 8. The learned Trial Court held the petitioner and co-accused persons guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act and sentence them accordingly. However, learned Appellate Court concurrently also held only the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P) Act, on the basis of evidence available on record and modifying the sentence directed to undergo R.I. for one and half years alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation, which has been assailed in this revision. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the judgment, has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is a scrap dealer and during trial, the receipts were also filed, marked as Exhibit- A & A/1 respectively, showing the purchase of scraps from Kolkata through authorized dealer but the same has not been believed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner is at present aged about more than 65 years, having no criminal background. It is further submitted that petitioner has undergone 10 days custody during trial of the case. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the fine amount of Rs. 500/- awarded by the learned Appellate Court as well as Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the damage of railway property to Railway Department. Submission on behalf of the State:- 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment on merits and has submitted that there are 2026:JHHC:16790 4 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 1136 of 2016) concurrent finding of illegal transportation of stolen railway's properties in the shape of scraps. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court and this revision is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 11. I have gone through the impugned judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. 12. It appears that in the course of trial, altogether six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, namely, CW-1 Arvind Kumar Singh, CW-2 Raj Kumar Singh, CW-3 Satish Chandra, CW-4 Natwar Singh, CW-5 Binod Kumar Sinha & CW-6 Bhola Shankar. Apart from this, following documentary evidence has been adduced: I. Exhibit-1 Expert Opinon II. Exhibit-2 Seizure List III. Exhibit-3 Complaint Petition 13. Defence has also examined a witness, namely, Ravindra Prasad as DW-1 and Exhibit-A Bill and Exhibit-A/1 Road Challan relating to seized materials as documentary evidence. 14. From the evidence, it appears that the petitioner was apprehended with the railway iron scrap, which has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses beyond reasonable doubt. No reason or explanation has been offered by the petitioner and the documents relied upon by him has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, since, he has filed receipts/bill without any auction held from the Railway Department. Therefore, conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 2026:JHHC:16790 5 | P a g e (Cr. Rev. No. 1136 of 2016) 3(a) of the R.P.(U.P.) Act is hereby upheld. 15. So far the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Appellate Court is concerned, it appears that occurrence is of the year 2003 and more than two decades have been elapsed. The petitioner has got no criminal background except this case and during the pendency of this case, he has also not indulged in any other criminal activity. 16. Hence, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, conviction of the petitioner is hereby upheld and confirmed and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Appellate Court is modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, subject to the variation that fine amount of Rs. 500/- awarded by the learned Appellate Court as well as compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to Railway Department is to be paid by the petitioner, which shall be deposited before the concerned learned Trial Court within two months from the date of this order, failing which, proportionate sentence of one and half years of R.I. will be imposed against the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed with modification in sentence. 18. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 19. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated:11/06/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 22/06/2026