Jharkhand High Court
Ramdeo Kanshi vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 November, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Revision No. 1043 of 2005
Against the judgment dated 05.03.2005 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 67 of 2003 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner,
F.T.C., Khunti Sahibganj, affirming the judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence dated 23.06.2003 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti G.R. Case No. 47 of 1994 (T.R. No. 30 of
2003) arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 8 of 1994
Ramdeo Kanshi .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. A. B. Mahato, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, APP
---
CAV On 05.10.2017 Delivered on 06.11.2017
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. B. Mahato, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 05.03.2005
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2003 by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner, F.T.C., Khunti Sahibganj, whereby and whereunder, the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.06.2003 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti G.R. Case No. 47 of 1994
(T.R. No. 30 of 2003) arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 8 of 1994, convicting
the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 406,420,467 and 468 of the
Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing him to various terms, has been
affirmed.
3. An F.I.R. was instituted on the allegation that Prantik Small Saving
Private Limited came into existence in 1988 in Torpa Bazar. It is stated that
the company used to collect small savings from the individuals. The Managing
Director had appointed agents including the petitioner for expansion of his
business. It is alleged that several investors had deposited money but the
same was not returned and the company was closed. Based on the aforesaid
allegation Torpa P.S. Case No. 08 of 1994 was instituted. Investigation
culminated in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken,
trial proceeded.
4. In course of trial six witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
P.W. 1 Maninath Mahto had stated that he had deposited money in the non-
banking institution since 1989 in the name of Jameshshwari Kumari. He had
deposed that Passbook and money receipts were also issued. He has further
2.
stated that without returning the amount, the company closed down. He has
further stated that the petitioner and Karam Singh were working as office in
charge of the company. P.W. 2, Satyendra Kumar Bhagat has stated that his
sister Janki Devi had deposited some amount in the company. He has stated
that Karam Singh Mahato had assured that money will be returned and if the
company does not return, he will compensate the loss. P.W. 3 Vijay Kumar
Bhagat is the informant of the case who has described the entire function of
the non-banking financial institution. He has stated that Amod Kumar Singh
was the Director and Dasrath Mahato was the Manager. The petitioner was
the office in charge and Karam Singh Mahato was functioning as an agent
through his wife Karmi Devi. He has also deposed that P.W. 2, who is his own
brother, and sister Janki Devi had deposited some amount in fixed deposit.
He has further stated that the company closed down and the deposited
amount was never returned. He has admitted to the fact that he had never
deposited any amount in the company. This witness has also stated that his
brother had agreed to open an account at the instance of Karam Singh
Mahato. P.W. 4, Chandu Gope and P.W. 5, Ramesh Mahto did not support
the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. P.W. 6 Sahay Lakra was
the Investigating Officer who has submitted charge-sheet against the accused
persons. This witness has stated that he did not collect any documentary
evidence to show that the petitioner was an agent.
5. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case with respect to the fact that the
petitioner was an agent of Prantik Small Saving Private Limited. He has
further submitted that P.W. 3, the informant who himself had not deposited an
amount and had merely stated about the functioning of the office of the
company. Learned counsel further submits that P.W. 2 was the aggrieved
person who had also not disclosed about the petitioner, rather he has stated
about Karam Singh Mahato, the co-accused.
6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of
the petitioner.
7. The petitioner seems to have been made accused only because of
the fact that he happens to be an office functionary. P.W. 2 Satyendra Bhagat
was an aggrieved person and the amount deposited by his sister Janki Devi
failed to yield any amount as the company was closed. This witness has
specifically stated that Karam Singh Mahato had assured him to return the
amount and if it is not returned by the company, he will compensate the
3.
P.W. 2 for the loss which has been caused to him. P.W. 3 had also stated that
the receipts showing deposit of the amount was given by Karam Singh
Mahato. The allegation of the petitioner being the agent of the company and
his alleged efforts to invest in the company seems to be a figment of
imagination, as none of the witnesses have categorically stated about the said
fact. The role of the petitioner seems to be of an office functionary and in
absence of the prosecution having been able to prove that the petitioner was
an agent who had deceived several persons to invest in the company, the
contention of the petitioner does appear to be justified.
8. The culpability of the petitioner in committing the offence as alleged
is apparently lacking. Since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its
case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt, this application has
to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned judgment
dated 05.03.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2003 by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Khunti Sahibganj as well as the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.06.2003 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti G.R. Case No. 47 of 1994 (T.R.
No. 30 of 2003) arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 8 of 1994, convicting the
petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 406,420,467 and 468 of the Indian
Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing him to various terms, are hereby set
aside. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 06th November, 2017
MK/N.A.F.R.