Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 932 (JHR)

Purna Chandra Mahato v. State Of Bihar

2003-08-01

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2003
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner was convicted for committing the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years by the trial Court. 2. The appellate Court also by judgment dated 30.8.1997 in Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 1994, affirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has filed this revision against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court. 4. The prosecution case in short is that under Jaldhara Scheme 08 wells were to be dug and the accused executed eight agreements as an executing agent and to start with the construction of wells he was advanced Rs. 40,000/- (i.e. 5000/- per well) and according to the terms of deed of agreement he was required to compete the construction of all the eight wells by 30.6.1988, but till the month of June, 1989, he had not even started the construction works of four wells, he had done works only of Rs. 5,673/- in respect of the remaining four wells. Inspite of several notices the accused did not respond and thus misappropriated the entire advanced money amounting to Rs. 40,000/- and thereby committed criminal breach of trust. 5. Altogether seven witnesses were examined of behalf of the prosecution to substantiate the charge and a number of documents were also adduced in evidence. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out any vital contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony. However he has mainly argued that even from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, at best it can be said to be a case of civil nature and for the recovery of the amount advanced to him civil suit should have been filed and the ingredients of Section 406 of IPC was lacking and therefore conviction of the petitioner under Section 406 of IPC is bad in law. 7. Alternatively it has been argued that the sentence awarded against the petitioner is too severe and therefore lenient view may be taken. 8. From the evidence on record, it is clear that a sum of Rs. 7. Alternatively it has been argued that the sentence awarded against the petitioner is too severe and therefore lenient view may be taken. 8. From the evidence on record, it is clear that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was advanced to the petitioner to start with the works of digging eight wells under Jaldhara Scheme, but he did not work whatsoever in respect of four wells and he did partial work with respect to four wells. The documentary evidence established that inspite of notices issued to him he failed to complete the work though time was extended upto 31.5.1989 vide Exts. 7 and 8 series. 9. By not doing the works of digging four wells, the public money, which was entrusted to him to complete works under the scheme but by not doing the same he misappropriated the said advance money for his own benefit which clearly amounts to criminal breach of trust. 10. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Courts below rightly found the petitioner guilty and convicted him under Section 406 of IPC. 11. So far as the sentence is concerned considering the fact that occurrence is of 1988 and that the petitioner has remained in custody for some time, the ends of justice would be met in reducing the period of sentence i.e. Rigorour Imprisonment for two years, to the period already undergone plus to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of two months in default to undergone Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. 12. Accordingly, this application in dismissed with modification in sentence as aforesaid.