Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 456 (JHR)

Ram Chandra Razak v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-14

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 21.09.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2005 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 131/2001 (T.R. No. 154/2005). 2. The factual background of the case is that Complaint Case No. 131 of 2001 was filed by one Rohan Mahto alleging therein that the petitioner (Ramchandra Razak) after hatching criminal conspiracy with other persons, executed an agreement dated 09.04.2001 to sell 20 decimals of land for a total consideration amount of Rs.12,501/- and he received a sum of Rs.2,501/- as an advance at the time of execution of the agreement. Again on 11.04.2001, the petitioner received the balance consideration amount of Rs.10,000/-, but did not execute the sale deed as contemplated in the said agreement, rather under criminal conspiracy, the petitioner got a sale deed executed through his mother namely Most. Bandhani in favour of one Ambiya Devi in respect of the aforesaid land and in spite of the repeated demands, the petitioner neither executed the sale deed nor returned the amount cheated from the complainant. 3. The persecution examined altogether six witnesses and also produced some documentary evidences showing that the mother of the petitioner namely Most. Bandhani had executed a sale deed in favour of Ambiya Devi on 20.04.2001. 4. The learned Trial Court vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2005, acquitted four other accused persons, however, the petitioner was held guilty of committing an offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further S.I for 2 months. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 79 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Koderma, which was transferred to the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma, who vide his judgment dated 21.09.2007, dismissed the said appeal upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 5. Appeal No. 79 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Koderma, which was transferred to the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma, who vide his judgment dated 21.09.2007, dismissed the said appeal upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2005 was passed by the learned Trial Court merely on conjectures and surmises and as such the same is not sustainable in law. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have not taken into consideration that the agreement does not bear the signature of the complainant. In the facts and circumstances, it is not a case of criminal culpability, rather it is purely a case of civil nature for which the complainant has got remedy under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. The complainant had prepared a forged document for the purpose of implicating the petitioner and this aspect of the matter was never considered by the learned Trial Court or the Appellate Court. The complainant has specifically stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in presence of Bandhani and Narayani, however, they were not examined in this case. 6. Learned A.P.P submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2005 as well as the order passed in appeal are completely justified and the same do not require any interference by this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659 , has held as under:- “22. The revisional court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of an appellate court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, “for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court”. It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or the Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring powers of an appellate court on the revisional court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power. 23. On this aspect, it is sufficient to refer to and rely on the decision of this Court in Duli Chand v. Delhi Admn. [ (1975) 4 SCC 649 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 663 : AIR 1975 SC 1960 ] in which it is observed thus: (SCC p. 651, para 5) “The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to reappreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse.” 9. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the evidence led before the learned Trial Court by the prosecution. P.W.1 (Tulsi Yadav) has deposed that an agreement was executed between the complainant and the petitioner for sale of the land measuring an area 20 decimals and out of the total consideration amount, the complainant paid Rs.2501/- at the time of execution of the agreement and the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 11.04.2001. P.W.2 (Ashok Kushwaha) also deposed that an agreement was executed between the complainant and the petitioner and advance money of Rs.2501/- was paid to the petitioner. P.W.3 proved the sale deed executed by Most. Bandhani in favour of Ambiya Devi. P.W.2 (Ashok Kushwaha) also deposed that an agreement was executed between the complainant and the petitioner and advance money of Rs.2501/- was paid to the petitioner. P.W.3 proved the sale deed executed by Most. Bandhani in favour of Ambiya Devi. The complainant examined himself as P.W.4, who specifically stated that on 06.04.2001, a talk took place between him and the petitioner whereby the petitioner had agreed to sell 20 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 20, Village-Purna Nagar and on 09.04.2001, an agreement was executed in this regard. Out of the total consideration amount of Rs.12,500/-, Rs.2501/- was paid to the petitioner as an advance and rest amount of Rs.10,000/- was agreed to be paid on 21.04.2001, but when the petitioner demanded it before the due date, it was paid on 11.04.2001 in presence of Bandhani and Narayani. He further deposed that Most. Bandhani executed the registered sale deed on 20.04.2001 in favour of Ambiya Devi wherein the petitioner stood as an identifier. He also deposed that when he demanded the money, the petitioner refused to return the same. The Deed Writer was also examined in the present case as P.W.5, who proved the contents of the agreement and signature. He also admitted that advance money was paid by Rohan Mahto in favour of Ramchandra Razak in his presence. P.W.6 is Shiv Shankar Prasad, who also supported the factum of agreement and payment of advance money of Rs.2501/- and that the further payment of Rs.10,000/- was to be made to the petitioner on 21.04.2001. 10. The prosecution further produced the deed of agreement signed by the petitioner, which was marked as Ext.1. Ext.2 is the sale deed executed by Most. Bandhani Devi in favour of Ambiya Devi wherein the petitioner was an identifier. 11. In view of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses as also the documents exhibited by them, I am of the considered view that the factum of existence of an agreement between the complainant and the petitioner for sale of 20 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 20, Village-Purna Nagar was proved. The fact that advance money of Rs.2501/- was received by the petitioner, has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses. The fact that advance money of Rs.2501/- was received by the petitioner, has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses. In spite of the existence of the agreement between the complainant and the petitioner, the said land was sold by the mother of the petitioner to Ambiya Devi wherein the petitioner was an identifier. It has also come in the evidence of the complainant that when he demanded the money after execution of the sale deed in favour of Ambiya Devi, the petitioner refused to return the same. The said fact goes to show that the intention of the petitioner was dishonest from the very beginning as he fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant and received advance money from him and caused loss to him by selling the said land through his mother to Ambiya Devi even after getting full consideration amount. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that since the agreement was not signed by the complainant, the same suffered from the legal infirmity and cannot be taken into consideration for imposing punishment upon the petitioner. I find no substance in the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the prosecution witnesses have fully proved the existence of the agreement and payment of full consideration amount by the complainant to the petitioner which was subsequently refused to be returned by the petitioner. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.09.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2005 as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 131/2001 (T.R. No. 154/2005) so as to interfere with the same in the revisional jurisdiction. 14. The present revision is accordingly dismissed. 15. Since the petitioner is on bail, his bail-bond is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned Court below forthwith to serve the remaining period of sentence awarded to him.