Kamta Prashad Viswakaram, Son of Sri Kali Sharma v. Resident of Bhaga Rail Gate, In front of Rikreson Club, P.O
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 373 of 2015 ------ Md. Shakur, Son of Late Gulam Nabi, resident of Jamadoba, Ramjanpur, P.O. & P.S. – Jorapokhar, District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand). .... …. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kamta Prashad Viswakaram, Son of Sri Kali Sharma, Versus Resident of Bhaga Rail Gate, In front of Rikreson Club, P.O. – Bhaga, P.S. – Jorapokhar, District – Dhanbad. .... Opp. Parties .... ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate. : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. ------ ORAL ORDER Order No. 15/Dated : 15th May, 2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.02.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 123 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in T.R. No. 18 of 2013 arising out of Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 111 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 1152 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 323, 341 of the I.P.C., thereby sentenced him to undergo S.I. of 3 years and a Page 1 of 5 fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 420 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner ought to have undergo a further S.I. for a period of 4 months. Petitioner was also sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 6 months and 1 month under Sections 323 and 341 of I.P.C. respectively. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed by the informant, namely, Kamta Prasad Vishwakarma, which was sent to Police Station for registration of F.I.R. under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. alleging therein that he was retired from Jamadoba, Tata Company. The petitioner Md. Sakur was also working as Assistant in his company. After his retirement, Md. Sakur started visiting his house and induced him to invest Rs. 1,00,000/- in share of Sun Earth Plantation Limited. The informant at the instance of the appellant invested Rs. 50,000/- in the name of his wife and Rs. 50,000/- in his name. The petitioner gave him a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was to be encashed after maturity of the scheme after 2 ‰ years. It is alleged that after the maturity period, when the informant went to the bank to encash the amount, he came to know that the account of the company was closed. Thereafter, the informant went to the petitioner and the petitioner on the pretext of paying his invested amount, induced him to transfer the share in his name. When the share was transferred, the petitioner with the help of criminals assaulted him and drove him away from his house. 4. On the basis of written report of the informant, Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 111 of 2002 was registered for the Page 2 of 5 offences under Sections 341, 323, 406, 420, 120B of the I.P.C. Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 5. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet on 13.12.2002 under Sections 341, 323, 406, 420, 120B of the I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The cognizance of this case was taken by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad on the same day under the aforesaid sections. The charge was framed against the accused person for the aforesaid sections. 6. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing the parties found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 420, 323, 341 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. The petitioners have preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 123 of 2013 before the court of Sessions, wherein the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. In the instant revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2013. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent. Petitioner was agent of Save Earth Planation Company and the money given by the informant was deposited in the said Company, for which all documents are brought on record. The cheque was also issued by Manager of the Company namely, A.K. Sinha. Petitioner has Page 3 of 5 no role in the episode happened against the complainant / informant, rather the Company leave its Principal Office and no clue has been found of the said Company. Petitioner has also been duped of huge amount of his own deposit in the same. Petitioner has remained in custody for his no fault for the period of about three months and has sufficiently been punished. Hence, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised no objection as regard to aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on merits, the revision is fit to be dismissed, but so far modification in sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may be passed. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as judgment passed by the appellate court, it appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been successfully able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 323 and 341 of the I.P.C. The finding of fact of the court below appears to be correct legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 11. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned admittedly out of three years simple imprisonment, he has Page 4 of 5 sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of about three months during course of trial and during pendency of the appeal and this revision. 12. It appears that the date of alleged occurrence was of the year 2002 and more than 22 years has been passed from the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and also served sentence about three months. 13. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him, as more than 22 years has elapsed and it will amount to travesty. 14. In view of discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioner is sentenced to go imprisonment for the period already undergone. 15. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 16. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith for information and needful. Sunil/-NAFR (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Page 5 of 5