JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Arup Dey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State. 3. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgement and order dated 03.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2014 who has been pleased to confirm the judgement of conviction dated 30.05.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 863 of 2013 (T.R. No. 1179 of 2014) and modified the sentence by reducing it from 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- to 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of further six months. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and in fact, the petitioner himself has been cheated. He submits that the petitioner had filed one criminal case against one Aman Kumar @ Appu and others bearing Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 56 of 2011 and the petitioner was only an introducer of the Informant and others, inter alia, to Mr. Aman Kumar @ Appu. He submits that merely on the allegation that the petitioner had introduced the Informant and others and there has been transaction of money for the purposes of securing employment in Railways, the petitioner has been convicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a Panchayati held and the petitioner had made refund of Rs. 50,000/- to P.W. 3. 5. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about one year and seven months and considering the custody of the petitioner and the nature of offence and also the nature of alleged involvement of the petitioner, some sympathetic view may be taken, so far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned. Arguments on behalf of the opposite party- State 6. Arguments on behalf of the opposite party- State 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, submits that as per P.W. 1, the amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was demanded by the petitioner for obtaining a job of Group D in Railways and his father and brother somehow managed and gave an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs cash in the month of July, 2010 after withdrawing from their bank account, but accused neither provided the job, nor returned the money in spite of repeated demands. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has also referred to the evidence of P.W. 2 who has stated that between 20.01.2010 to 25.08.2010, the petitioner had assured him that he would provide a job in Railways and for that, he demanded Rs. 3 lakhs from him and for which, he initially gave a cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- and further deposited Rs. 50,000/-, 30,000/-, 25,000/- and 15,000/- in the account of the petitioner and for which, the bank receipts were also exhibited. Learned counsel has submitted that considering these aspects of the matter, it appears that the petitioner was fully involved in the commission of offence and the money was directly transferred to the petitioner and accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was merely an introducer is not correct. The learned counsel submits that considering the seriousness of offence, no sympathetic view may be taken so far as the sentence is concerned. Findings of this Court 8. This Court finds that as per the prosecution story, the informant had given a written report in the police station alleging that the petitioner had taken a total sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- from him, his brother Mukesh Thakur and his cousin Kishore Thakur between the period from 20.01.2010 to 25.08.2010 in the name of providing them a job in Railway. It was alleged that the petitioner had given them fake joining letter and admit card, but did not provide them job and thereby, cheated them with their amount. It is further alleged that when they got knowledge that they have been cheated, they demanded their money from the petitioner, upon which the petitioner had admitted that he would return the money in panchayati. Sum of the money was reduced in panchayati and the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. It is further alleged that when they got knowledge that they have been cheated, they demanded their money from the petitioner, upon which the petitioner had admitted that he would return the money in panchayati. Sum of the money was reduced in panchayati and the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 4 lakhs and executed an agreement to that effect. It is alleged that despite that, the petitioner did not return the money and also threatened them with dire consequences. It was further alleged that the accused had taken Rs. 1,60,000/- from one Satyendra Kumar Dangi in similar fashion. 9. As per the records, it is apparent that the informant alongwith Kishore Thakur, Mukesh Thakur and Satyendra Kumar had jointly given the written report and a case was registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code against the accused (petitioner herein) on 10.03.2013 being Katkamsandi P.S. Case no. 74 of 2013. 10. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under the same sections and charge was framed against the petitioner on 12.06.2013 under the aforesaid sections. The charge was read over to the petitioner and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. It further appears from the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below that after closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which the petitioner denied that he had taken money from the informant and other witnesses in the name of providing them a job in the railways, but has admitted that some of the money has been deposited in his account by the witnesses, but that was for repayment of the amount which they had taken from him. The petitioner had also denied that he had given any document regarding appointment for job in the Railways. He also denied having entered into any agreement by him in any Panchayati. 12. This Court finds that altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of the case and certain documentary evidences were also exhibited which included Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-1/3 which are cash deposit receipts of Bank of India in the account of the petitioner. The agreement dated 17.12.2011 was also exhibited. 13. 12. This Court finds that altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of the case and certain documentary evidences were also exhibited which included Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-1/3 which are cash deposit receipts of Bank of India in the account of the petitioner. The agreement dated 17.12.2011 was also exhibited. 13. P.W. 1 has been examined as the informant of the case and he is an unemployed student of post-graduate in Vinoba Bhave University. He has stated that in the year 2010, the petitioner, who was his distant relative came to his house and told him that he would provide him a job of Group-D in Railways and demanded Rs. 2.5 lakhs from him for that purpose. He also stated that father and brother somehow managed to give an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the month of June to July, 2010 after withdrawing from their account in the bank, but the petitioner did not provide him job or returned his money despite several demands. It was also alleged that similarly the petitioner had taken money from P.W. 5, P.W. 2 and other persons on the pretext of providing jobs to them. This witness is one of the victims of the case and he has supported the prosecution story and categorically stated that he had given money to the petitioner who allured him to provide job in the Railways. P.W. 2 is another victim of the case who has stated that he came across the petitioner in between 20.01.2010 to 25.08.2010 through one Pramod Ojha and the petitioner assured him that he would provide him a job in Railways and for that he demanded three lakhs rupees. This witness has further stated that initially he gave Rs. 50,000/- cash and further deposited Rs. 50,000/-, 30,000/-, 25,000/- and 15,000/- in the account of the petitioner whose bank account detail has been given and the bank receipts have been marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-1/3. This witness has stated that the petitioner had told him that their job was in process and they had to go through medical examination for their appointment and then he demanded more money for appointment. He has stated that he further gave Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the petitioner, but he did not provide the job. This witness has stated that the petitioner had told him that their job was in process and they had to go through medical examination for their appointment and then he demanded more money for appointment. He has stated that he further gave Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the petitioner, but he did not provide the job. He has also stated about Panchayati being held in presence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 3 and he has proved the agreement as Exhibit- 2 and identified the petitioner in the dock. He has further stated that the petitioner neither provided them job, nor returned the money and the petitioner has also cheated the informant, one Kishore Thakur and P.W. 1 in similar fashion by taking money from them. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that for the same allegation, one case has been instituted in Katkamsandi P.S. bearing F.I.R. No. 56 of 2011 against one Aman Kumar @ Appu by the petitioner and other persons and this witness has also deposed that there was no vacancy in Railways at that time and no agreement was executed at the time of transaction of money. After analyzing the evidence of P.W. 2, the learned trial court has categorically recorded the fact that P.W. 2 is a victim and P.W. 2 has duly proved the bank receipts, Exhibit- 1 to 1/3 as well as the agreement. P.W. 3 is another witness who has also fully supported the prosecution case and he has also exhibited his signature on the agreement. This witness has stated that on 17.11.2011, a Panchayati was held in his presence and there was some transaction of money. He also identified the petitioner. This witness has stated that he pressurized the petitioner to repay the amount to the informant and accordingly, the petitioner made repayment of Rs. 50,000/- to the informant. P.W. 4 is another witness to the panchayati who has also fully supported the prosecution case, so far as the panchayati in connection with return of money is concerned. P.W. 5 is the informant of the case who has fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated that between January, 2010 to August, 2010, the petitioner had taken Rs. 2,00,000/- from him for providing a job in the Railways. He has also stated that accused had also taken Rs. 3,00,000/- from his brother Mukesh Thakur and Rs. P.W. 5 is the informant of the case who has fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated that between January, 2010 to August, 2010, the petitioner had taken Rs. 2,00,000/- from him for providing a job in the Railways. He has also stated that accused had also taken Rs. 3,00,000/- from his brother Mukesh Thakur and Rs. 2.5 lakhs from his cousin Kishore Thakur. This witness being the informant of the case, has fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 6 is the investigating officer of the case, who has proved the formal First Information Report and identified the accused. 14. This Court finds that all these witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and each one of them were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. The specific case of the defence before the learned trial court was that the main culprit is not facing the trial, rather the petitioner has been made scapegoat and it was argued that the petitioner, in fact, is victim of the fraud and the petitioner himself had filed a case against the real culprit. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial court that there is inordinate delay in lodging FIR which also smacks of manipulation and hence, he is entitled to be acquitted. Similar arguments were also made before the learned appellate court. 15. This Court further finds that after considering the rival submissions and materials brought on record, the learned trial court, inter alia, found as follows: - i. It is evident that in the year 2010 the accused approached P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5, who were unemployed youths and assured them that he would provide them job in the Railway as he had high level contact in the Railway and for that he demanded money from them and this fact has been supported by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 in their evidence. ii. It is also evident that the accused has taken money from P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 in cash as well as through bank deposits. The accused has admitted this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that some of the money has been deposited in his account by the witnesses which is corroborated by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and also by the bank deposit slips, Ext.- 1 to Ext.-1/3. iii. The accused has admitted this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that some of the money has been deposited in his account by the witnesses which is corroborated by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and also by the bank deposit slips, Ext.- 1 to Ext.-1/3. iii. It is also evident that the accused entered into a contract by executing an agreement (Ext.-2) on 17.12.2011 with the informant, P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 and other persons at Cafeteria, Hazaribagh in presence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 in which it was agreed that he would pay the amount of rupees four lakhs in monthly installment to the informant which he had taken from him in the nature of providing job. iv. The learned trial court further found that from the oral evidences, Bank receipts and contention of the agreement it is proved beyond doubt that the accused has taken money from the informant and witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, in the name of providing them job. v. The defence of the accused that one Shakeel or Aman @ Appu had taken money from the informant and other witnesses in the name of providing the job including the accused or the money has not been taken by the accused or he was also a victim of fraud and for that he had filed a criminal case against the real perpetrator does not hold water rather from the witnesses and documentary evidence it is established that he had taken money from the informant and other witnesses in the name of providing them job. He might have been an Agent of the real perpetrator and have filed a case against him but he cannot escape the rigor of law and his complicity with the crime cannot be ruled out. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 have never stated that one Shakeel or Aman @ Appu had taken money from them. The defence of the accused is not probable rather it is evident that the accused made false promise and obtained money from the informant and others by fraud and the promise was false to his knowledge at the time when it was made and that too made in order to deceive the informant and the witnesses. The defence of the accused is not probable rather it is evident that the accused made false promise and obtained money from the informant and others by fraud and the promise was false to his knowledge at the time when it was made and that too made in order to deceive the informant and the witnesses. The accused induced them to contribute the money to him in the pretext of providing lucrative job in the Railway which he knew that the same would not be materialized. It is also evident that there were no vacancies for the job in the Railway at that time. vi. It is, therefore, inferred beyond all reasonable doubt that there was a dishonest intention in the mind of the accused from very inception of transaction. It can be safely presumed that there was no intention to fulfill the promise which were made in order to induce the informant and others to part with their money and they acted on the representation of the accused and in belief of the truth which was, in fact, false to the knowledge of the accused. The accused obtained the money from them by a promise which he knew he could not fulfill. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the money that the main intention of the accused on the particular occasion was dishonest and fraudulent and the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt mens-rea on his part. vii. Delay in lodging FIR has also been reasonably explained and the intervening period has not been shown to manipulate things by the informant more so offence of cheating is considered as continuing offence and whole case of the prosecution cannot be thrown on account of delay only. 16. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under section 420 of IPC and acquitted him for the offence under Sections 467 / 468 / 471 of IPC by a well-reasoned judgement. 17. The learned appellate court considered the arguments of the petitioner on the point of delay of two years seven months in lodging the FIR and after scrutinizing the evidences on record, found that the delay was properly explained. 17. The learned appellate court considered the arguments of the petitioner on the point of delay of two years seven months in lodging the FIR and after scrutinizing the evidences on record, found that the delay was properly explained. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC were considered on the basis of materials on record and the learned lower appellate court has also considered the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner was a co-victim and this argument was also rejected by a well-reasoned finding. The learned appellate court recorded its finding on the point of mens-rea also and decided it against the petitioner by referring to the materials on record. The learned lower appellate court recorded concurrent findings of facts and found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 420 of IPC, but modified the sentence to some extent. The operative portion of the appellate court’s judgement is as follows: - “I find and hold that the evidence available on record is sufficient to establish and prove that the accused appellant Krishna Yadav has fraudulently induced the informant and other victims to deliver money. 15. To finally conclude, I must find and hold that the learned Trial Court has rightly come to the finding that the appellant accused guilty for the offence punishable u/s 420 of the IPC. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the learned Trial Court has imposed full term imprisonment. There is nothing on record against the convict about his previous criminal antecedent. The learned trial court has imposed three years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC in addition to a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) in default six months Simple Imprisonment. To my considered opinion, a period of two years Rigorous Imprisonment in place of 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment is sufficient quantum of sentence. The fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. six months Simple Imprisonment is good in law.” 18. This Court has gone through the judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and finds that the judgments are well-reasoned judgments and upon consideration of the entire evidences on record, the learned courts below have found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court has gone through the judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and finds that the judgments are well-reasoned judgments and upon consideration of the entire evidences on record, the learned courts below have found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned appellate court has already taken a lenient view on the ground that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and modified the sentence. There being no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgements, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgments passed by the learned courts below under its revisional jurisdiction. 19. This criminal revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 21. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are hereby cancelled. 22. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “email/FAX”.