Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1892 (JHR)

Ramdeo Kanshi v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-11-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. (CAV) - Heard Mr. A.B. Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned APP for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 05.03.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2003 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Khunti Sahibganj, whereby and where under, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.06.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti G.R. Case No. 47 of 1994 (T.R. No. 30 of 2003) arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 8 of 1994, convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 406,420,467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing him to various terms, has been affirmed. 3. An F.I.R. was instituted on the allegation that Prantik Small Saving Private Limited came into existence in 1988 in Torpa Bazar. It is stated that the company used to collect small savings from the individuals. The Managing Director had appointed agents including the petitioner for expansion of his business. It is alleged that several investors had deposited money but the same was not returned and the company was closed. Based on the aforesaid allegation Torpa P.S. Case No. 08 of 1994 was instituted. Investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 Maninath Mahto had stated that he had deposited money in the non banking institution since 1989 in the name of Jameshshwari Kumari. He had deposed that Passbook and money receipts were also issued. He has further stated that without returning the amount, the company closed down. He has further stated that the petitioner and Karam Singh were working as office in charge of the company. P.W. 2, Satyendra Kumar Bhagat has stated that his sister Janki Devi had deposited some amount in the company. He has stated that Karam Singh Mahato had assured that money will be returned and if the company does not return, he will compensate the loss. P.W. 3 Vijay Kumar Bhagat is the informant of the case who has described the entire function of the non-banking financial institution. He has stated that Amod Kumar Singh was the Director and Dasrath Mahato was the Manager. P.W. 3 Vijay Kumar Bhagat is the informant of the case who has described the entire function of the non-banking financial institution. He has stated that Amod Kumar Singh was the Director and Dasrath Mahato was the Manager. The petitioner was the office in charge and Karam Singh Mahato was functioning as an agent through his wife Karmi Devi. He has also deposed that P.W. 2, who is his own brother, and sister Janki Devi had deposited some amount in fixed deposit. He has further stated that the company closed down and the deposited amount was never returned. He has admitted to the fact that he had never deposited any amount in the company. This witness has also stated that his brother had agreed to open an account at the instance of Karam Singh Mahato. P.W. 4, Chandu Gope and P.W. 5, Ramesh Mahto did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. P.W. 6 Sahay Lakra was the Investigating Officer who has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. This witness has stated that he did not collect any documentary evidence to show that the petitioner was an agent. 5. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to prove its case with respect to the fact that the petitioner was an agent of Prantik Small Saving Private Limited. He has further submitted that P.W. 3, the informant who himself had not deposited an amount and had merely stated about the functioning of the office of the company. Learned counsel further submits that P.W. 2 was the aggrieved person who had also not disclosed about the petitioner, rather he has stated about Karam Singh Mahato, the co-accused. 6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner seems to have been made accused only because of the fact that he happens to be an office functionary. P.W. 2 Satyendra Bhagat was an aggrieved person and the amount deposited by his sister Janki Devi failed to yield any amount as the company was closed. This witness has specifically stated that Karam Singh Mahato had assured him to return the amount and if it is not returned by the company, he will compensate the P.W. 2 for the loss which has been caused to him. This witness has specifically stated that Karam Singh Mahato had assured him to return the amount and if it is not returned by the company, he will compensate the P.W. 2 for the loss which has been caused to him. P.W. 3 had also stated that the receipts showing deposit of the amount was given by Karam Singh Mahato. The allegation of the petitioner being the agent of the company and his alleged efforts to invest in the company seems to be a figment of imagination, as none of the witnesses have categorically stated about the said fact. The role of the petitioner seems to be of an office functionary and in absence of the prosecution having been able to prove that the petitioner was an agent who had deceived several persons to invest in the company, the contention of the petitioner does appear to be justified. 8. The culpability of the petitioner in committing the offence as alleged is apparently lacking. Since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt, this application has to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2003 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Khunti Sahibganj as well as the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.06.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti G.R. Case No. 47 of 1994 (T.R. No. 30 of 2003) arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 8 of 1994, convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 406,420,467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing him to various terms, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.