Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 347 (JHR)

Govind Shankar Ojha v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-16

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 30.09.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1993 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Giridih in Trial No. 24 of 1993 has been affirmed with the modification in sentence by reducing the same from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was merely an employee of Ashok Kumar Jain. Learned counsel further submits that whatever has been committed is at the instance of the Ashok Kumar Jain for which he should not been criminally prosecuted. It has been stated in the alternative that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction, the period of sentence be modified in view of the long pendency of this case and also the fact that the petitioner has undergone some period in custody out of a maximum sentence of three months of simple imprisonment as has been awarded to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. From the complaint petition, it appears that the petitioner was an employee of one Ashok Kumar Jain whose services had been terminated w.e.f August, 1982 but the accused had put his false claim over certain properties including house and petrol pump of Ashok Kumar Jain. It is alleged that in order to grab the properties, the petitioner had dishonestly and fraudulently submitted forged rent receipt in Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 75 of 1983 which on inquiry was found to be forged and fabricated. 5. In course of trial, five witnesses have been examined by complainant including P.W-4 Vinod Kumar Sinha who is the Anchal Adhikari, Dehri. P.W.-4 has verified the rent receipt in the name of the petitioner and had given the report to the Investigating Officer of Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 75 of 1983. This witness had stated that on verification of the rent receipts the same were found to be forged. P.W.-4 has verified the rent receipt in the name of the petitioner and had given the report to the Investigating Officer of Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 75 of 1983. This witness had stated that on verification of the rent receipts the same were found to be forged. P.W-1 is the complainant Nagendra Kumar Jain who had stated that he is the constituted Power of Attorney holder of Ashok Kumar Jain and duly looked after and managed the property of Ashok Kumar Jain. This witness had stated that the petitioner was an employee of Ashok Kumar Jain whose services, however, was terminated and he had filed Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 75 of 1983 in which the petitioner had produced the forged rent receipts. This witness had admitted to the fact that the litigation is going on between the parties. Several documents were marked as exhibits which included the rent receipts produced by the petitioner in Nimiaghat P.S. Case 75 of 1983 which were found to be forged. 6. Learned trial court on consideration of the documentary and oral evidence had been pleased to convict the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 465 and 471 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1993 in which although the judgment of conviction has been affirmed but considering the fact that the parties were litigating for more than 16 years, the sentence was reduced to three months simple imprisonment. 7. The factual narration of events as produced by the prosecution does not entitle him interference in the order of conviction passed against the petitioner. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed, the parties are on inimical terms and the complaint case was instituted more than three decades back, the period of sentence thus is modified to the period already undergone. 8. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.