High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.03.12 15:02:48 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR CRR No. 56 of 2011 Order Reserved on 05.03.2025 Order Delivered on 12.03.2025 • Balsai Ram, S/o Baishakhu Ram, aged about 35 years, Caste Rawut, R/o village Jumaikela Tehsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. versus ... Applicant • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Jashpur, District Jashpur, C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate. For State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Order 1. This present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.13/2008, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.235/2008 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G., convicting the applicant under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 2 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-1 Ku. Phuljensiya Kujur lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Kansabel, Jashpur to the effect that in the year 2001-2002, present applicant allured her and other persons of village Jumaikela to invest money under Free India Concepts Scheme with an assurance that the said company would provide them goods and they would also get other benefits and thus, fraudulently obtained Rs.2,500/- from each person, but in turn, they did not get any benefit from the said scheme. On the basis of said written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-3) has been registered against the present applicant. During investigation, applicant was taken into custody and from his possession, receipts of FIC company were seized vide Ex.P-2. 3. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant before the Court of JMFC under Section 420 of IPC. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court of learned JMFC and the Appellate Court, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. He further submits that there is no evidence on record which would suggest that applicant committed cheat and fraudulently obtained money from the 3 complainant and other persons. He also submits that after knowing everything about the scheme of the said company, complainant and other persons voluntarily invested the money in the said company. He also submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of complainant and other prosecution witnesses. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. Reliance has been placed on the decision of State of Kerala vs A. Pareed Pillai and another reported in 1972 SCC (CRI) 705. 6. On the contrary, counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Complainant/PW-1 Ku. Phuljensiya Kujur has stated in her deposition that she knows the applicant and 4-5 years ago, he came to her house and forced her to invest money in Free India Company Scheme and on his assurance, she deposited an amount of Rs.2,500/- in the said company. However, on the contrary in para 5, she admitted that she herself attended the meeting of Free India Concept Company twice. She also admitted that she attended the first meeting which was held in Ambikapur and the same was continued for four hours and she also attended the second meeting which was convened in the village which continued for two hours. In 4 para 6, she also admitted that it was told by the said company that you would get commission if you add a member and after joining the said company, she would get items worth Rs.2,000/-. She also admitted that she could add only one member and failed to make the down line, therefore, she could not get any commission from the said company. In para 7, she also admitted that after attending the meeting at Ambikapur, she deposited the amount. She also admitted that in written report (Ex.P-1), she herself mentioned the names of person, but they did not make their signatures in Ex.P-1. 9. This apart, PW-2 Silvanus, father of PW-1 Ku. Phuljensiya Kujur, also admitted in his cross-examination that her daughter/PW-1 had participated in the meetings of the said company which were held in Ambikapur and other places. He also admitted that at the behest of her daughter/PW-1, he joined the said company. He also admitted that apart from him, Yogendra Chauhan, Shyam Lal Verma and Topnarayan also joined the said company. Besides, PW-3 Anil Toppo admitted that before giving money, he read the book of Free India Concept Company and himself attended the meeting which was held in Kansabel where he came to know how FIC Company works. He also admitted that after reading the book and attending the meeting, he voluntarily gave Rs.2,500/- to applicant and applicant has not committed any fraud/cheat with him. Furthermore, PW-4 Balkrishna Paikara has stated that he did not sign over the document (Ex.P-1) and also admitted that applicant did not receive any money from him directly and he has nothing to do with the applicant. Moreover, PW-5 Asharam Yadav also admitted in his cross-examination that after 5 reading the book of the said company, he himself invested the money and he attended the meeting of said company which was held in Kansabel where 50-100 persons were present and there he came to know how Free India Concept Company works, how to make a down line and how to work in the said company to get profit in future. He also admitted that after attending meeting in Kansabel, he deposited money in the said company. He also admitted that he did not sign over the document (Ex.P-1). 10. Similarly, PW-6 Sono Ram has also admitted that he does not know that PW-1 Ku. Phuljensiya Kujur lodged any written report against the applicant and he did not sign over the document (Ex.P-1) and he has no knowledge who made his signature in written report (Ex.P-1). He also admitted that he along with Topnarayan had gone to attend meeting of said company which was held in Ambikapur for 3-4 hours where he came to know about the procedure and work of the company. He also admitted that applicant told him that if he adds 3 members, then only he would get bonus amount. Likewise, PW-8 Yogendra Chauhan has also stated that he did not sign over the document (Ex.P-1) and in cross-examination, he admitted that the applicant told all the 11 persons that it is not compulsory to join the said company and those who want to join, they can join on their own will. He also admitted that applicant told all 11 persons that if they work according to the Company's scheme, then only they would get benefits, otherwise, they would not. Furthermore, PW-9 Topnarayan has also stated that he did not sign over the document (Ex.P-1) and denied that applicant fraudulently obtained Rs.2,500/- from him. In 6 cross-examination, he admitted that he got the deposited amount receipt from the company and no one has committed fraud with him and he joined the company on his own free will. 11. In the matter of A. Pareed Pillai (supra), the Supreme Court has held that “to hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise.” 12. From perusal of the above evidence in the light of aforesaid decision of Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that complainant/PW-1 and other persons, after attending the meeting and also knowing everything about the scheme, work and procedure of the said company, joined the company voluntarily and deposited the amount in the said company on their own free will. This apart, PW-7 Shyam Lal Sharma, Assistant Sub-Inspector, has stated that in his presence, the names of person mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-1), have made their signatures over the document (Ex.P-1), but complainant/PW-1 Ku. Phuljensiya Kujur herself, PW-3 Anil Toppo, PW-4 Balkrishna Paikra, PW-5 Asharam Yadav, PW-6 Sono Ram, PW-8 Yogendra and PW-9 Topnarayan have admitted that they did not make any signature in written report (Ex.P-1), which shows that complainant/PW-1 herself mentioned the names of those persons in order to implicate the applicant in the crime in question. Further, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record which would suggest that the applicant himself cheated the complainant and other persons by alluring them to join the said company and get benefits and then fraudulently obtained 7 money from them. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the applicant is entitled for acquittal. The learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court were totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence. 13. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Court of JMFC dated 12.11.2008 and that of Appellate Court dated 20.01.2011 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 420 of IPC.
Decision
14. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Akhilesh Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE