Janardan Singh, son of Late Balram Singh, resident of Gajua Tand, PO v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pramod Kumar Nathani, son of Late Hari Prasad
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No. 2 of 2010 Janardan Singh, son of Late Balram Singh, resident of Gajua Tand, PO- .... Appellant Dhanbad, PS-Dhansar, District-Dhanbad Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pramod Kumar Nathani, son of Late Hari Prasad Nathani 3. Binod Kumar Khaitan, son of Late Mangal Chandra Kaitan Both are the residents of D.V. 73, Salt Lake City, PO & PS- Salt Lake, ... Respondents Kolkata (West Bengal) --------------- CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE For the Appellant
Legal Reasoning
“69. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong.” 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, Acquittal Appeal No. 2 of 2010 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) R.K.
Arguments
: Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Spl.PP For Respondent nos.2-3 : Mr. Deepak Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate Mr. Janak Mishra, Advocate Mr. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate --------------- Order No.07 / 12th March 2024 This Acquittal Appeal challenges the judgment dated 19th January 2009 passed in C.P. Case No. 897 of 2006. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent without his consent constructed shop over a piece of land comprised under Plot No.2304 within Khata No.102 of Mouza Damkara PS Barwa within the district of Dhanbad and applied for registration under the Commercial Sales Tax Department. The statements of the witnesses tendered in C.P. Case No.897 of 2006 and the other evidences tendered therein, if any, shall not constitute the offence of cheating which is punishable under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. under: Sections 24 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code are extracted as 24. Dishonestly.—Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”. 415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or 2 omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 4. Section 415 defines ‘cheating’ to hold a person guilty who deceives any person fraudulently or intentionally to deliver a movable property to which that person shall have no rights. The expression ‘fraudulently’ has been defined under section 24 to explain that whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”. Similarly, the expression ‘fraudulently’ has been defined under section 24 to mean that if something has been done fraudulently with intention to defraud the same shall amount to fraudulent. 5. In “Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.” (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Supreme Court has observed as under : “32. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are : (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission, (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.” 6. The trial Judge has held as under: “In this case the complainant has alleged that accused persons without his knowledge had installed a board in his premises and had applied for sales tax number and current account and as such have cheated him. However the complainant has not alleged that the accused persons had intentionally induced him to do or omit to do anything. As such the necessary ingredients of section 415 I.P.C. are not fulfilled in this case. Further coming to the evidences of the witnesses it appears that none of the witnesses including the complainant has seen the accused persons installing the board at the shop of the complainant. C.W.1 though has stated in his deposition that he has his cycle shop adjacent to the shop of the complainant but he has not claimed to see the board. It further appears that there is nothing on record to connect Anamica Oversees ltd. with the accused. Further though the complainant has alleged that the accused persons had applied for sales tax registration number and for current account on which the address of the premises of the complainant had been given but those documents have not been brought in record. Over and above the complainant has not made it clear as to what prompted him to go to bank and sales tax to query on seeing the alleged board. On the contrary from Ext.4 the letter allegedly sent by the accused to the complainant it appears that the parties were having some business relationships. As such it could be said that the complainant could not able to prove his case. 9. In view of the discussions made above, it becomes crystal clear that complainant has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt. There is nothing on record to connect the present accused persons with the alleged occurrence. 3 As such the accused persons above named are acquitted from the charges leveled against them u/s 417 1.P.C. and they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bond.” 7. In “Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand” (2013) 11 SCC 673 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “12. …. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” 8. This is a well settled law that the High Court while acting as the appellate Court shall not interfere with the judgment of acquittal unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. In “Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P” (2008) 10 SCC 450 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the appellate Court in dealing with the cases in which the trial Courts have acquitted the accused should bear in mind that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that the accused is innocent. 9. In “Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P.” (2008) 10 SCC 450 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :