2026:JHHC:19076 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 566 of 2015 -------- Sengupta Roy, son of Late Dugai Roy, resident of Junkudar, P.O. & P.S.- Chirkunda, District-Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amrit Rai, son of Budhu Rai, resident of Junkudar, P.O. & P.S.- Chirkunda, District-Dhanbad … … Opp. Parties ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- Dated: 30th June, 2026 By Court Heard Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.03.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2011 by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 30.08.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 1939 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341 & 452 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C.; S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for two years along with a fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run 2026:JHHC:19076 2 concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that accused Sengupta Roy, is nephew of the complainant. They were joint possession of ancestral property recorded under the same khatiyan. The accused got service in B.C.C.L. on the basis of compensation ground as 9 bighas of land were given to B.C.C.L. The complainant has also got ½ share in the said 9 bighas of land given to B.C.C.L. for the job. The accused assured the complainant that he would purchase 4½ bighas of land in complainant’s favour at any other place. Relying upon this assurance, the complainant gave four and half bighas of land to the B.C.C.L. through a registered deed. However, despite his assurance, the accused did not purchase the land in favour of the complainant, even several years after joining B.C.C.L. rather the accused paid the complainant Rs.500/- occasionally, but after some time he stopped making these payments. During Durga Puja festival, the complainant demanded Rs.500/- from the accused. The accused refused to pay the amount and also misbehaved with him then the complainant lodged a complaint with B.C.C.L. On 05.12.2004 at about 8:00 A.M., the accused forcibly entered in complainant’s house, abused and assaulted him for complaining to B.C.C.L. When the complainant's wife and daughter intervened, they were also assaulted by the accused. Although, the complainant reported the incident to the local police, no action was taken, leading him to file the present complaint case. 4. On the basis of above, complaint case was registered as C.P. 2026:JHHC:19076 3 Case No. 1939 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 323, 341 & 452 of the I.P.C. against the accused. The learned C.J.M., Dhanbad made over the said complaint under Section 192(1) Cr.P.C. to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for inquiry and disposal. 5. After inquiry, charges were framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 323, 341 and 452 of the I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The complainant, in support of his case, has adduced Indra Mohan Rai (C.W.-1), Shamu Kumari (C.W.-2), Smt. Balika Ghatwarin (C.W.-3) and Amrit Roy (C.W.-4). No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf the complainant. 7. On the other hand, the defence has examined one witness, namely Sohan Roy, as D.W.-1. 8. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above against which he filed appeal which was also dismissed by affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for maximum two years for the offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C. 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 learned Trial Court without recording any reason 2026:JHHC:19076 4 has convicted the accused which is absolutely not justifiable under law, therefore, the petitioner deserves the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Moreover, the occurrence is of the year 2004 and two decades have elapsed and the petitioner has maintained peace and has settled in his life. Hence, the petitioner may be extended benefit of Section 4 of 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 petitioner, 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. 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 A.P.P., therefore, I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as well as Appellate Court 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. 13. 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 2026:JHHC:19076 5 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/- (Rupees Five 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. In view of above discussion and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 17. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of, accordingly. 18. 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.) 30.06.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 02/07/2026