JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Ms. Nehala Sharmin, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State. 3. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgement of conviction dated 25.06.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2010 by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Seraikella whereby the judgement of conviction dated 11.12.2009 passed in G.R. No. 638/2006 Chandil P.S. Case No. 126/2006 by the learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella has been upheld and the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment and directed to serve the sentence concurrently. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 419/420 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo two years’ Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned counsel submits that the incident is of the year 2006 and the allegation against the petitioner as per the prosecution case is that, the petitioner had taken Rs. 1230/- from the complainant for the purposes of securing employment to the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that considering the nature of allegation, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence be modified. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for the period from 22.09.2006 to 17.11.2006 and also for the period from 20.08.2014 till 03.11.2014 when the petitioner was directed to be released on bail by this court. Arguments of the opposite party -state 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has cheated not only the complainant, but also other persons. As per the allegation made in the First Information Report, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature and it is not a simple case of allegation of Rs. 1230/- being taken by the petitioner from the complainant for securing employment. She submits that the manner in which the offence has been committed is quite serious and, in such circumstances, no sympathetic view should be taken in favour of the petitioner. 1230/- being taken by the petitioner from the complainant for securing employment. She submits that the manner in which the offence has been committed is quite serious and, in such circumstances, no sympathetic view should be taken in favour of the petitioner. She also submits that at the time of sentencing the petitioner, these aspects of the matter have been taken into consideration by the learned court below. She also submits that in the revisional jurisdiction, there is no scope for interference in the facts and circumstances of this case and there being no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement, the present revision petition may be dismissed. Findings of this Court 7. The prosecution case is based on a written report of one Mantu Mahato (P.W-4 ) dated 01.09.2006 who happens to be a student of B.A. It has been alleged that on 23.08.2006 one Babu Bhaiya, accused , who claimed himself to be an officer of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, came to his house and informed him that for those poor people who do not get employment under reservation, a survey is going on to give them employment. For this purpose, for every panchayat, three persons are to be nominated for employment and for every block 12 unemployed persons have to be selected in the first phase. Upon this, when the informant expressed his desire to get employment, said Babu Bhaiya (accused) informed him that the informant has to get himself registered for which Rs. 1230/- is required to be deposited and the Jharkhand Government would provide employment to selected person in Chakradharpur Railway or in district block. The accused gave a form of Railway Recruitment Board and took Rs. 1230/- from the informant. The accused asked the informant to fill up the forms and hand it over to him or to the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella, which is to be deposited in the office of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Thereafter, the accused asked the informant to talk to the Deputy Commissioner as to where the form is to be deposited and the Deputy Commissioner told him that the form can be deposited in his office or can be handed over to the accused Babu Bhaiya. On 01.09.2006, the accused was to come again and the candidates were to fill the form and the accused was to collect the forms from them. On 01.09.2006, the accused was to come again and the candidates were to fill the form and the accused was to collect the forms from them. In the meantime, the informant contacted the Block Development Officer and inquired about the plan. In response, he came to know that there was no such selection commission. Thereafter, the informant was convinced that the accused Babu Bhaiya and many others are projecting themselves as government officials and are engaged in fraud and cheating. It has been alleged that the accused had cheated not only the informant, but many other village boys. It was further the case of the prosecution in the First Information Report that on 01.09.2006 at about 3.30 p.m. the accused Babu Bhaiya had come to take the forms and the informant demanded receipt from Babu Bhaiya. In response, the accused asked the informant to hand over the form and said that the receipt will be given later. Upon this, the accused was caught hold of by the informant with the help of co-villagers. The accused disclosed his name as Premnath Kumbhakar @ Premchand Pal (the present petitioner). During the course of inquiry from the accused, he disclosed that amongst his group, one person namely Mahesh Sao was projecting himself as the Deputy Commissioner, who was residing in one rented house. The present petitioner also disclosed the mobile number of said Mahesh Sao. The petitioner also disclosed that Mahesh Sao had made the forms and handed it over to him in the form of a book. Then certain documents were seized from the motorcycle of the petitioner and thereafter, a case was registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to the FIR. 8. Upon investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and investigation against the co-accused Mahesh Sao remained pending. The charge was framed against the present petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on 07.12.2006. The petitioner claimed himself to be innocent and was accordingly tried. The prosecution examined altogether five witnesses and after closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and he claimed to be innocent. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 9. The petitioner claimed himself to be innocent and was accordingly tried. The prosecution examined altogether five witnesses and after closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and he claimed to be innocent. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 9. This Court further finds that altogether five witnesses were examined by the learned trial court. P.W. 1 was Ghanshyam Mahato, P.W. 2 – Sunil Dogra, P.W. 3 – Krishna Kishore Mahato, P.W. 4- Mantu Mahato (the informant) and P.W. 5 was Arun Kumar – the investigating officer of the case. 10. So far as the informant is concerned, he has been examined as P.W. 4 and during his evidence-in-chief, he has fully supported the prosecution case. He has also stated that two persons namely Ghanshyam (P.W-1) and Krishna (P.W-3) were present at the time of conversation between him and Babu (accused petitioner), which had taken place on 23.08.2006. This witness has also supported the case regarding the incident which had taken place on 01.09.2006. He has stated that with the help of local persons, they got hold of the present petitioner and form book, mobile, motorcycle and other materials were seized on the spot and seizure list was also made. He identified his signature on the seizure list which was marked as Exhibit- 1/1. The signature of witness Krishna Kishore Mahato was marked as Exhibit- 1/2. This witness was fully cross-examined by the defence. He has stated that the accused had taken Rs. 1230/- from him and did not give any receipt. This witness has also supported the prosecution case by stating that the accused had taken Rs. 1230/- from other persons also. Thus, the P.W. 4 has fully supported the prosecution case and has clearly stated that the petitioner had taken Rs. 1230/- from him and other persons for the purposes of securing public employment. P.W. 4 has also supported the seizure list and other materials seized when the petitioner was apprehended by the informant and others. 11. So far as P.W. 1 – Ghanshyam Mahato is concerned, he has also fully supported the prosecution case and has identified his signature on the seizure list, which was marked as Exhibit- 1. He has identified the petitioner in the court. He has also stated that the petitioner had come to his shop and also to his house. 11. So far as P.W. 1 – Ghanshyam Mahato is concerned, he has also fully supported the prosecution case and has identified his signature on the seizure list, which was marked as Exhibit- 1. He has identified the petitioner in the court. He has also stated that the petitioner had come to his shop and also to his house. This witness has further stated that on 01.09.2006, the petitioner had come to his shop. This witness had also given Rs. 1230/- to the petitioner. This witness has stated that he had handed over the form to the police. This witness was also fully cross-examined by the defence. The learned trial court has recorded the entire evidence of this witness and has found that there was no inconsistency in his evidence. 12. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, he is Sunil Dogra. He is a formal witness who has exhibited his signature on the formal First Information Report, which was exhibited as Exhibit - 2. 13. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, he is Krishna Kishore Mahato. He has also fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he has also been cheated by the petitioner and the petitioner had taken Rs. 1230/- for filling up the form as registration fee. This witness has also stated that the petitioner had taken similar amount from other persons in the village also. This witness had met the petitioner for the first time on 23.08.2006 and at that point of time, Ghanshyam Mahato (P.W-1) and Mantu Mahato (P.W-4) were also present. This witness has fully supported the prosecution case regarding the incident of 23.08.2006 as well as 01.09.2006 and also the seizure of the goods including the vehicle. This witness was also fully cross-examined by the defence and the entire evidence of this witness has also been considered by the learned trial court. 14. So far as P.W. 5 is concerned, he is Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that he joined on 12.10.2006 and the earlier investigation was conducted by one Manoj Kumar Mahato, who was transferred. He has stated that after he took over the investigation, he came to know about the owner of the mobile number- 9334084160 and came to know that one Pradip Mahato is the owner of the said mobile number. He has stated that he joined on 12.10.2006 and the earlier investigation was conducted by one Manoj Kumar Mahato, who was transferred. He has stated that after he took over the investigation, he came to know about the owner of the mobile number- 9334084160 and came to know that one Pradip Mahato is the owner of the said mobile number. This investigating officer had submitted the charge-sheet against the present petitioner and the investigation against Pradip Mahato- the co-accused was still pending. He has also stated that later on he could not find out about Mahesh Sao. This witness has also stated that he did not record the evidence of any of the witnesses and had only submitted the charge-sheet against the present petitioner. The learned trial court also recorded that the seized motorcycle was released upon application filed by the petitioner in his favour. 15. The learned trial court, after considering the entire materials on record, came to a finding that the petitioner had approached the informant as well as other witnesses and disclosed his name as Babu Bhaiya. The petitioner had also stated that he was an employee of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission which provides employment to unemployed boys of the villages. Apart from this, the petitioner got them registered and collected Rs. 1230/- from each one of them, but did not give any receipt and accordingly played fraud upon the informant and other witnesses. Accordingly, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code by finding that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. However, so far as the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned trial court was of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case under these sections and acquitted the petitioner under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 16. On the point of sentence, the learned trial court considered the nature and the seriousness of offence and sentenced the petitioner for two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned trial court also directed that in case the petitioner does not deposit the fine amount, then he would undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months. 17. 1,000/-. The learned trial court also directed that in case the petitioner does not deposit the fine amount, then he would undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months. 17. The learned lower appellate court also considered the entire evidences on record and came to a concurrent finding that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned lower appellate court also was of the view that the learned trial court rightly convicted the petitioner under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and found that the judgement passed by the learned trial court was a well- reasoned order and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 18. This Court finds that the learned courts below have given concurrent finding of facts in connection with the offence committed by the petitioner under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was apprehended on 01.09.2006 when he had come to collect the forms. Not only the informant of the case, but two other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case by stating that the petitioner had taken Rs. 1230/- for the purposes of their registration and had also taken this much amount from other persons interested in public employment and has thereby cheated not only the informant and two of the witnesses, but also others. This Court finds that the manner in which the alleged offence has been committed by the petitioner, the present case does not call for any interference on the point of sentence also. Accordingly, there being no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned judgements passed by the learned courts below, the present petition is hereby dismissed. 19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 21. Let the Lower Court’s Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/email”.