Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 439 (JHR)

Anadi Sah v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-03-01

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned A.P.P. is present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.08.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1998/26 of 2001 whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.07.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in G. R. Case no. 1183 of 1994 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year on each count has been affirmed only with respect to the conviction passed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that a complaint case was initially instituted by the complainant on the allegation that the petitioner was approached for purchasing piece of land for a consideration amount of Rs. 61,000/-. It is alleged that the informant had paid Rs. 10,000/- on 10.02.1993 and thereafter on 15.12.1993 further amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid. Allegation has also been levelled that on 28.02.1994 the complainant had approached to the petitioner with rest amount of Rs. 31,000/- the petitioner denied to accept the same and had also denied that earlier amount of Rs. 30,000/- was received by him. Such act on the part of the petitioner led the complainant to institute a compliant case which was subsequently referred to the Police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C leading to registration of G. R. Case No. 1183 of 1994. 4. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken by the learned court below the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda who vide judgment dated 29.07.1998 was pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year on each count. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1998/26 of 2001 in which the petitioner was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the judgment and order of conviction and sentence so far as the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, was affirmed. 5. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. P.W. - 5, is the informant who has supported the prosecution case by stating that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was taken in two instalments towards part consideration amount of Rs. 61,000/- as has been agreed upon by the petitioner. This witness has further stated that the rest amount of Rs. 31,000/- was refused to be accepted by the petitioner and in fact the petitioner apart from recalling from his earlier commitment of selling the plot of land in question had refused to acknowledge the fact that he received an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on an earlier occasion. This witness has proved Exhibit - A and A/1 which are the documents to substantiate the transactions which had taken place between the petitioner and the informant. 7. P.W. - 1, Sudhir Sah, has also supported the prosecution case. This witness happens to be the son-in-law of the informant. 8. P.W. - 2, Hiraman Pandit, has also supported the prosecution case and had stated as to how the petitioner had taken the amount of Rs. 30,000/- but subsequently refused to acknowledge the same. 9. P.W. - 3, Indradeo Sah, has stated about the agreement entered into between the informant and the petitioner and the amount which was taken by petitioner. 10. P.W. - 4, Wakil Sah, who had also stated more or less on similar terms to what has been stated by the other witnesses. 11. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside by the learned appellate court on the ground that there was no entrustment to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust. However, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code it is the consistent case of the prosecution that the petitioner had indeed taken an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the informant but has subsequently refused to acknowledge such fact. However, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code it is the consistent case of the prosecution that the petitioner had indeed taken an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the informant but has subsequently refused to acknowledge such fact. The conviction, therefore, of the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since in the year 1994 and has remained for sometime in custody. That by itself would indicate that the petitioner has been sufficiently punished. Accordingly, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 13. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.