Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1464 of 2016 Angad Kumar son of Sarbeshwar Kumar, resident of village Mirdih, P.O. Garhjopur, P.S. Jaypur, District Purulia (W.B.). The State of Jharkhand Versus --- … … Petitioner … … Opposite Party CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party --- : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, APP --- 12/30.08.2024 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The case arises out of G.R. Case No. 2163 of 2004 / T.R. No. 816 of 2013 arises out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 106 of 2004. 3. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2013 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur has been pleased to dismiss the appeal. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur vide order dated 30.05.2013 and the petitioner has been held guilty for offence 420 read with section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. However, the petitioner has been found not guilty for alleged offence under section 468/467/471/472 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 2½ years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under section 420 read with section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code in default sentence. 4.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts but the impugned judgments are perverse and they called for interference. The learned 1 counsel has further submitted that the basic ingredients for offence of cheating as mentioned in section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is not satisfied and therefore the conviction of the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He has further submitted that the petitioner has neither deceived nor fraudulently / dishonestly induced anybody to part with any property nor has not received any valuable property and consequently the conviction is fit to be set aside. 5. He has further submitted that the entire prosecution story revolves around the main accused namely Niraj Pursottam. The informant of the case had met Niraj Pursottam in his house where Praveen Pankaj Prabhat @ Sagar was residing as a tenant and it was Niraj Pursottam who had proposed for a job in NHPC Purulia Project and for that he collected money. In the FIR multiple persons have been mentioned from whom the money was collected and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has not been named as accused in the FIR but it has been alleged in the FIR that it was the petitioner and Praveen Pankaj Prabhat @ Sagar who used to bring customers to Niraj Pursottam in the name of providing Job. 6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the two co- accused namely Niraj Pursottam and Praveen Pankaj Prabhat @ Sagar have absconded and consequently the judgment impugned in the present case relates only to the petitioner. The learned counsel has further submitted that the investigating officer having not been examined serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the court. 7. He has also submitted that so far as the informant is concerned, Rs. 20,000/- was refunded to him in cash and said Niraj Pursottam had issued a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- in the favour of the informant but ultimately the cheque had bounced. He has submitted that the cheque issued by Niraj Pursottam has been exhibited as exhibit 5 and the cheque return memo has been exhibited as exhibit 6 which bounced on account of ‘fund insufficient’. He has also submitted that said Niraj 2 Pursottam was having a bank account in Indian Bank, Muzzafarpur. He has referred to the cheque which bears the account No. 13274. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that as per the prosecution story, the informant namely Sudhir Kumar Singh came in contact with Niraj Pursottam in house No. 768, New Sitaramdera wherein Praveen Pankaj Prabhat @ Sagar was residing as tenant. The informant used to go Sagar’s house for computer repair work. In the first week of 2004, Niraj Pursottam proposed the informant for a job in NHPC, Purulia Project. Since the informant was unemployed, he came under good faith of Niraj Pursottam and gave him Rs. 20,000/- in February, 2004 at the house of Sagar. Niraj Pursottam told the informant that 11.03.2004 will be his joining date. When the informant met him at Tower Lodge Purulia and asked for joining letter, then Niraj Pursottam told him that due to election notification, joining could be possible on 20.06.2004. The informant again gave him Rs. 20,000/- for other formalities of joining such as medical etc. However, neither medical was conducted nor joining was done on 20.06.2004. Niraj Pursottam avoided the joining on one pretext or another. Like informant, his brother-in-law Raman Kumar Singh also gave Rs. 35,000/- to Niraj Pursottam for job of his wife Sangita Kumari. When Niraj Pursottam started avoiding for joining, the informant and his brother-in-law asked for money receipt and then Niraj Pursottam issued a money receipt of Rs. 75,000/- dated 09.09.2004. Thereafter, Niraj Pursottam gave two joining letters on 14.11.2004, one in the name of informant’s wife Usha Kumari and another in the name of his sister-in-law Sangita Kumari for joining in NHPC. The date of joining in that letter was 29.11.2004. When both of them went to Bagmudi (Purulia) for joining on 29.11.2004 neither Niraj Pursottam was found nor there was any office of NHPC. Thereafter, the informant met Niraj Pursottam and told him that Niraj Pursottam was cheating them as there was no office at Bagmudi. 3 Again, Niraj Pursottam on 03.12.2004 assured that joining will be done on 06.12.2004. He also gave joining letter at the informant’s house on 03.12.2004. Then informant asked his money back and told Niraj Pursottam that informant was not interested in service. Thereafter, Niraj Pursottam called him at Vijeta Hotel and told that his brother is also there who will pay him money. When the informant went to Vijeta Hotel, accused avoided to give money and threatened him for false implication in kidnapping case. Thereafter, the informant made Hulla and police reached there. According to the informant, besides him, Niraj had taken Rs. 1,80,000/- from Rajeev Kumar, Rs. 2,20,000/- from Krishna Murari and Rs. 1,75,000/- from Saroj Kumar in the name of providing job and had also given them forged joining letters. Niraj Pursottam also told the informant that petitioner and Praveen Pankaj Prabhat @ Sagar used to bring customers to him in the name of providing job. According to the informant he and others were cheated by accused persons. 10. As per the FIR itself the allegation against the petitioner was that he used to bring customer to said Niraj Pursottam in the name of providing job and it was alleged that accordingly the informant and others were cheated by the accused persons. This Court is of the view that merely because the police had not shown the name of the petitioner in the accused column the same has no bearing in the matter. The allegation was made against the petitioner in the FIR itself. 11. This Court further finds that initially the charge sheet was submitted against Niraj Pursottam and supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the remaining two accused i.e. the petitioner mentioned as Angad Bhatika @ Angad Kumar and Praveen Pankaj Prabhat @ Sagar. The accused Praveen Pankaj Prabhat @ Sagar and Niraj Pursottam were declared absconder. 12. At the stage of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined. The informant of the case was Sudhir Kumar Singh. The prosecution also produced documentary evidences including money receipts 4 amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 75,000/- respectively and the cheque return memo. The seizure list and three joining letters which were marked as Exhibit ‘X’ to X/2 for identification. 13. The records of the case reveal that PW2 had deposed that he met the petitioner on 24th November when he went for joining and it was told to him that the petitioner was the person who was managing the joining in NHPC and petitioner told him that joining will be done in NHPC. He has further deposed in Para 10 that about Rs. 40,000/- was given to the petitioner and he has also stated that he met the petitioner and at that time Saroj was present. Later on Krishna Murari came there. He has also been cross examined and he said that he made no conversation with the petitioner and Rs. 40,000/- was given to Niraj Pursottam who gave it to the petitioner in his presence. 14. This Court finds that PW 3 is the Saroj Kumar Choudhary who deposed that Niraj Pursottam had introduced him to the petitioner who told that money was required for medical test and Niraj Pursottam demanded Rs. 30,000/- per person and gave money. The house of the petitioner was in Jaypur in District Purulia and the witness has stated that along with the informant and one Murari they went to the house of the petitioner and met Niraj Pursottam and the petitioner and gave two bundles of Rs. 40,000/- each to Niraj Pursottam and at the same time Niraj Pursottam gave Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner. This witness has been also cross examined and he has stated in his cross examination that he met the petitioner at the house of Sagar on 07th August and in the house of the petitioner in the month of November. 15. PW5 is Raman Kumar Singh and his wife was also one of the victims. He has also made similar allegations against the petitioner. PW1 is Krishna Murari he has also fully supported the prosecution case. 16. This Court finds that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have been thoroughly cross examined and they have fully supported the prosecution case and involvement of all the three persons in the matter of taking money in order to secure a job in 5 NHPC and thereby the petitioner had cheated the victims including the informant. The informant was only one of the victim. The other victims were also examined. 17. This Court finds that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 420 read with section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and it is apparent from the evidences on record that the petitioner acted in connivance with Niraj Pursottam and Praveen Pankaj Prabhat @ Sagar who were co-accused in the matter but unfortunately they have remained absconder. 18. This Court finds that the learned courts have scrutinized all the materials on records, discussed each and every evidence and have given consistent finding regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the matter of committing offence to fraudulently collect money in the name of securing job. The prosecution had successfully proved the charge against the petitioner for offence under section 420 read with section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. 19. This Court finds that the learned appellate court has also considered the argument of the petitioner with regard to non- examination of the investigating officer of the case and has rejected the same ground by citing reasons and has held that PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 were the victims of the offence who have been cheated by the petitioner with co-operation of other accused in the name of providing job in NHPC, Purulia. There evidences are consistent and trustworthy and there was no contradiction in the witness. Their evidences were also corroborating the evidence of each other and the defence counsel could not take any contradiction during cross examination of the witnesses. 20. This Court finds that both the learned courts have evaluated the evidences and have rightly come to the conclusion that the offence under section 420 read with section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code was duly made out against the petitioner and the other two accused remained absconder. 6 21. This Court is of the considered view that both the courts have given concurrent findings based on materials on record. 22. There is no perversity, illegality and material irregularity in the matter of appreciation of the offence. The basic ingredients for offence under section 420 read with section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code having been satisfied. The impugned judgment of conviction does not call for any interference. 23. So far as the sentence is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve any lenient view as the allegation proved against the petitioner relates to cheating the victims in the name of securing job. 24. Accordingly this petition is hereby dismissed. 25. The learned counsel for the state is directed to ensure that appropriate steps be taken by the Police Department to arrest the absconding accused persons. 26. Let the records which has been filed before this Court be sent back to the concerned court. 27. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. Rakesh/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 7