JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.-2. 3. Heard Ms. Mahua Palit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State. 4. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 17.03.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-IX, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 101/2004, whereby the learned appellate court had affirmed the judgment and order of sentence dated 17.04.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. C-III 129 of 1999 (T.R. No. 877 of 2004). 5. The petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 403, 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 403 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to serve rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 420 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 424 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Arguments of the petitioner 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his argument, has submitted that the entire dispute arises out of one so-called agreement dated 06.01.1993 which was said to be signed by the petitioner. As per the agreement, certain bags of tamarind (emli) were to be supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was supposed to sell the same for an amount not less than 4.50 per kg with a commission of 2% of the total amount. The learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that although the petitioner had lifted 494 bags of tamarind and he was supposed to make payment of Rs. 1,19,819.70 to the complaint, but he had made payment of Rs. 70,131/- only and the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 49,688.70 remained due. The learned counsel submits that the entire case arises out of civil dispute between the parties and there is no criminality, as such, involved in the present case. 1,19,819.70 to the complaint, but he had made payment of Rs. 70,131/- only and the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 49,688.70 remained due. The learned counsel submits that the entire case arises out of civil dispute between the parties and there is no criminality, as such, involved in the present case. He further submits that there was also enormous delay in filing the complaint case, in as much as, the so-called agreement was dated 06.01.1993 and the complaint case was filed only in the year 1999. 7. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1687 of 2016 dated 11.04.2017 (Suresh Pradhan and Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr.) as well as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699 (Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh) to submit that merely because the petitioner had failed to honour the agreement, no case of cheating can be made out. He submits that the basic ingredients for offence, for which the petitioner has been convicted, are totally absent. He submits that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set-aside. 8. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1993; the complaint case was lodged in the year 1999; the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent; the petitioner has remained in custody for a few days during the pendency of the present revision petition and that the petitioner has faced the rigorous of criminal case for a very long time, some sympathetic view may be taken. 9. The learned counsel has further submitted that he has taken instructions from his client that he is also ready to abide by any modification of sentence which may include enhancement of fine which may be remitted to the organization of the complainant upon due identification. Arguments of the opposite party No.-2 10. 9. The learned counsel has further submitted that he has taken instructions from his client that he is also ready to abide by any modification of sentence which may include enhancement of fine which may be remitted to the organization of the complainant upon due identification. Arguments of the opposite party No.-2 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.-2, on the other hand, while opposing the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the learned courts below have recorded concurrent finding that as per the agreement dated 06.01.1993, the petitioner had lifted 494 bags and was supposed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,19,819.70 to the complainant, but he had made payment of Rs. 70,131/- only and the balance amount i.e. Rs. 49,688.70 remained due. He also submits that the documents were exhibited by the prosecution without any objection from the side of the defence which included the agreement and the various bills establishing that the petitioner had lifted total of 494 bags. He submits that the specific case of the petitioner before the learned court below was that he had lifted only 279 bags of tamarind. The learned counsel submits that the very fact that the 494 bags were lifted by the petitioner, but he acknowledged only 279 bags before the learned court below, itself indicates that there was criminal intent of the petitioner since beginning to deprive the complainant of the remaining bags and the amount recovered through its sale. The learned counsel submits that merely because there is an agreement involved in the present case that does not exclude the criminal liability of the petitioner, as the basic ingredients for offences under Sections 403, 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code are duly satisfied. 11. The learned counsel further submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing the evidences on record and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences at revisional stage and coming to a different finding. The learned counsel submits that in such view of the matter, no interference is called for, so far as the judgment of conviction is concerned. 12. The learned counsel further submits that so far as the modification of sentence is concerned, it is for the court to consider all aspects of the matter and take appropriate decision. The learned counsel submits that in such view of the matter, no interference is called for, so far as the judgment of conviction is concerned. 12. The learned counsel further submits that so far as the modification of sentence is concerned, it is for the court to consider all aspects of the matter and take appropriate decision. He also submits that in case, this Court is modified the sentence, it may be taken into consideration that the organization of the opposite party No.-2 has suffered financial loss and accordingly, while modifying the sentence, some substantial amount may be imposed upon the petitioner by way of fine and the same be remitted to the organization of the opposite party No.-2 upon due identification. Arguments of the opposite party-State 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State submits that so far as the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below are concerned, the impugned judgments do not call for any interference. But, so far as the modification of sentence is concerned, she submits that considering the amount involved in the present case, the fine, if any, may not be less than Rs. 65,000/-. She has also submitted that she has no objection if the fine amount is remitted to the organization of the opposite party No.-2. Findings of this Court 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the learned courts below have given concurrent findings that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the fact that the petitioner had taken away 494 bags of tamarind each containing 55 Kg with an undertaking to sell the same at minimum rate of Rs. 4.50 per Kg and he was also entitled to deduct 2% of his commission of the total amount. The prosecution has also succeeded in establishing that the petitioner had paid only Rs. 70,131/- out of Rs. 1,19,819.70 and failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 49,688.70. 15. The learned courts below have also considered the defence evidence as the petitioner had examined himself as defence witness. It was the specific case of the petitioner as defence witness that he had taken only 279 bags of tamarind from the opposite party No.-2 and had completely denied having taken 494 bags of tamarind. 49,688.70. 15. The learned courts below have also considered the defence evidence as the petitioner had examined himself as defence witness. It was the specific case of the petitioner as defence witness that he had taken only 279 bags of tamarind from the opposite party No.-2 and had completely denied having taken 494 bags of tamarind. It was further the case of the defence that he had also prayed to reduce the agreed amount of sale of tamarind @ Rs. 2.50 per Kg, for which he filed Ext.-A. The learned court below considered the defence evidence and was of the view that the defence has failed to convince the court and has failed to demolish the evidence of the prosecution, which were based on documentary evidences as well. 16. This Court finds that during the trial,the petitioner had clearly denied to have 494 bags of tamarind and had admitted only to the extent of 279 bags. This Court finds that the very fact that the petitioner acknowledged only taking of 279 bags although found to have taken 494 bags by concurrent findings of both the courts below, itself indicates that there was criminal intent involved in the case since beginning while the petitioner had taken away 494 bags to misappropriate or convert to his own use the remaining bags and cause wrongful loss to the complainant. 17. The learned appellate court, after considering the evidences on record, gave specific finding that the prosecution had established that the petitioner took away 494 bags of imli each containing 55 Kg and had also undertaken to sell the same at minimum rate of Rs. 4.50 per Kg and also that the petitioner was entitled to deduct 2% of his commission. The appellate court further held that prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the petitioner had paid only Rs. 70,131/- out of Rs. 1,19,819.70 and failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 49,688/-. The learned appellate court discussed the defence evidence and recorded that the petitioner by examining himself as witness tried to establish that he had taken only 279 bags of imli and had also admitted that imli was to be sold @ Rs. 4.50 per Kg and was liable to pay the amount to the complainant at the aforesaid rate. Further, the defence case was that he had made a prayer to reduce the rate of imli to Rs. 4.50 per Kg and was liable to pay the amount to the complainant at the aforesaid rate. Further, the defence case was that he had made a prayer to reduce the rate of imli to Rs. 2.50 per Kg (exhibit-A). The learned appellate court considered the cross-examination of the petitioner, where he had deposed that the application regarding deduction in sale price was not submitted in the office of the complainant rather an oral discussion was made. The appellate court considered the evidence of the petitioner and recorded that the petitioner has failed to demolish the evidence of the prosecution and rather he corroborated the story of the prosecution and admitted that there was an agreement with the department regarding sale of imli at aforesaid minimum rate and by adducing evidence, he tried to convince that he had taken only 279 bags of imli. The learned appellate court held that there was clear evidence that the petitioner had taken away total 494 bags of imli in 3 installments from the office of the complainant and Rs. 49,688.70 was due. With this background, the learned appellate court clearly recorded concurrent finding that the petitioner cheated and dishonestly induced the petitioner to deliver 494 bags of imli and did not pay the amount as per the agreement. The learned appellate court, after thorough discussion of the materials on record, found no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned trial court and upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 403, 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. This Court is also of the view that the learned courts below, after scrutinizing the evidences on record, had convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 403, 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code and the basic ingredients of the said offences stand satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 403, 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. This Court finds that the judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner do not help the petitioner in any manner. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 403, 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. This Court finds that the judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner do not help the petitioner in any manner. It cannot be disputed that an act of a person may invite a civil wrong as well as criminal consequence and it has to be seen in the facts of the particular case as to whether there is any criminal element to the same or not. 20. This Court finds that merely because there is an agreement involved in the present case, the same does not exclude the criminal liability of the petitioner particularly when the basic ingredients for the aforesaid offences stand satisfied by concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court on the point of any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of conviction and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. 21. So far as the sentence is concerned, this Court finds that although the agreement was executed and emli was lifted as back as on 06.01.1993, but the complainant case was filed in the year 1999 after the petitioner was approached for payment on various dates including in the year 1999. 22. The petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for a few days during the pendency of the revision petition and at present the petitioner is more than 62 years of age. He was 45 years of age on the date of conviction as recorded in the judgment of the trial court dated 17.04.2004. The petitioner has faced the rigours of the criminal case for about 22 years and this court is of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner in jail custody. 23. For the ends of justice, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby modified and limited to the period undergone by the petitioner in judicial custody during the pendency of the revision petition with additional fine of Rs. 65,000/-. The learned court below has already imposed fine of Rs.3,000/-. The entire fine amount of Rs. 68,000/- is directed to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below within a period of six months from today. 65,000/-. The learned court below has already imposed fine of Rs.3,000/-. The entire fine amount of Rs. 68,000/- is directed to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below within a period of six months from today. The learned court below is directed to remit the fine amount to the extent of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant organization upon due identification. 24. In case of non-deposit of fine amount, the learned court below shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner and the petitioner shall serve the sentence already awarded by the learned court below. 25. Accordingly, the present revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence. 26. If the fine amount is deposited in the aforesaid time frame, the bailors will be discharged from their liabilities under the bail-bond. 27. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed. 28. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 29. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘E-mail/FAX’.