Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.927 of 2012 With Interlocutory Application No. 1521 of 2012 ====================================================== Anil Kumar Jha, S/O Rama Kant Jha Resident Of Village- Chainpur Baghel, P.S.- Desari, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sudhir Kumar Jha, resident of Village- Chainpur Baghel, P.S.- Desari, District- Vaishali 3. Raj Kumar Jha, resident of Village- Chainpur Baghel, P.S.- Desari, District- Vaishali 4. Ranjit Kumar Jha @ Putti Jha, S/O Mahendra Jha, resident of Village- Chainpur Baghel, P.S.- Desari, District- Vaishali .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Mahto, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 28-09-2012 Cr. Revision No. 927 of 2012 with Interlocutory Application No. 1521 of 2012. By judgment and order dated 28.2.2006 passed in G.R. No.3245 of 1998/Desari P.S.Case No. 171 of 1998 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were convicted for charges under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court CR. REV. No.927 of 2012 (4) dt.28-09-2012 2 / 3 2 Accused opposite party nos. 2 and 4 were further convicted for charge under Section 379 of the Indian penal Code. Accordingly, order of sentence was passed against them and maximum sentence awarded was of one year. The accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, preferred Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 2006, which was finally heard and disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Vaishali at Hajipur. However, while dismissing the appeal of the aforesaid accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court, the learned lower appellate court modified the order of sentence passed against them and they have been given benefits of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The learned lower appellate court, in exercise of its powers under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, directed them to be released on execution of probation bonds of Rs. 1,000/- with two sureties of the like amount for a period of six months. Apparently, the conviction, recorded against the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 by the learned trial court, has been affirmed by the learned lower appellate court, but, in view of modification in sentence, the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 executed the probation bonds and they have already undergone the sentence as modified by the learned lower appellate court. The present revision application has been filed on 31.8.2012, after undue delay of about four years, as the limitation expired as far back as on 8.9.2008. The petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.927 of 2012 (4) dt.28-09-2012 3 / 3 3 1521 of 2012 seeking condonation of aforesaid delay of about four years for the reasons disclosed in the interlocutory application. One of the pleas taken is that against the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner had filed Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 377 of 2012. That appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by an order dated 18.6.2012 passed by a Bench of this Court. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned lower appellate court. Apparently, the aforesaid Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 377 of 2012 was also filed after undue delay of almost four years. In the facts of the case, this Court finds that neither sufficient cause nor reasonable explanation has been furnished by the petitioner for condonation of delay, occurred in filing the main criminal revision application. On merit also, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction, once the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have already undergone the modified punishments imposed against them. In the result, the Interlocutory Application as also the main criminal revision application stand dismissed. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.