Jharkhand High Court
Mathura Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 19 June, 2023
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 749 of 2018
Mathura Prasad Pandey ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP
--------
10/ 19.06.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 26.03.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, FTC, Bokaro, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 38 of 2015, preferred by the petitioner has been partly allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 31.03.2015, in G.R. No. 1573 of 1998, corresponding to T.R. No. 1179 of 2015, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro; whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo RI for two years under Section 120 B of the IPC, and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, has been modified to the extent that the conviction has been confirmed but the sentence has been modified for period already undergone.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Sri N.K. Saha, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office received an anonymous call with respect to some fake revenue stamps collected and kept by one Mathura Prasad Pandey who was in officiating postman of the B.S. City, R.S. Post Office for the purpose of selling it. Just after receiving the said information, he went to the place of that fellow and interrogated by keeping him in confidence and when the petitioner disclosed everything in this context for keeping fake revenue stamps with him and he produced the same kept in his residence, worth Rs. 7,480/- then the informant took his signature on the back side of the revenue stamps and he prepared a seizure list for that. The petitioner disclosed about one Gauri Lal Bouri, Assistant Post Master, B.S. City and his brother-in-law Dina Nath Pandey were the persons who had supplied the said fake revenue stamps to him for purpose of marketing and he also disclosed that several other documents like NSC, 2 KVP and IVP were kept in the residence of Gouri Lal Bouri, Prabhunath Gupta and Raju Verma and on search operation those documents may be recovered from their place. It is further alleged that on the said information the matter was duly inspected and a huge amount of NSC, KVP and IVP were seized from the House of one Gouri Lal Bouri.
Accordingly, FIR was registered against five accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that though the prosecution examined several witnesses and produced several documents and material exhibits, but could not be able to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts.
He further submits that to substantiate the offence committed under Section 414 of the IPC, the property which is the subject of the charge should have to be stolen property. In the instant case, there is no reason to believe that such properties were stolen and petitioner was trying to conceal it. He further submits that the petitioner has no concern with Railway Post Office, Balidih and nothing has been recovered from Balidih colony or Balidih P.S. where FIR was registered. Further, no information regarding any report from Nasik and whether the stamps were sent to Nasik (where stamps were printed) or not. He further submits that revenue stamps were not seized by the police, rather produced by the informant before police alleging these revenue stamps as seized from the residence of the petitioner.
It has been submitted that anyone can buy stamps, N.S.C., K.V.P., I.V.P. from the post office with money. The learned counsel further submits that informant did not give proof of the seized stamps being forged.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below; as such, the conviction cannot be set aside.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the LCR this Court finds that so far as P.W. 1 is concerned he is the peon of the Vijaya Bank and he has not stated anything against the petitioner.
P.W. 2 (informant) deposed in paragraph 6 of his deposition that the revenue stamps appeared to be fake but he could not say what was the 3 monogram on the revenue stamp. Further, in para 8 he has deposed that he has not mentioned the distinguishing features between the original and fake revenue stamps. He could neither say the number of the revenue stamps received from the State Treasury nor he could say what was the stock of the revenue stamps in the post office. Further, this witness has deposed that no report was called for from Bokaro Treasury as to whether the seized revenue stamps were issued from there or not.
So far P.W.4, Pranav Kumar, who was then posted as the Postal Superintendent at Dhanbad is concerned, in his cross examination, this witness has deposed that he has no information as to whether the stamps were sent for verification to Nasik or not.
P.W. 5-the Investigating Officer has categorically deposed in paragraph 10 of his deposition that nothing noteworthy was found on inspection from the house of petitioner. In paragraph 56, 57 and 62 he deposed that the informant has not provided any original stamp NSC, KVP, IVP so as to check whether the seized stamps were forged, in paragraph 58 and 61 he deposed that anyone can buy stamp, NSC, KVP, IVP from Post Office. He further deposed in paragraph 64 that the informant has not given any information to him regarding theft of stamp from post office.
It further transpires from Exhibit 1 (44 sheets of revenue stamps) and Exhibit 2 the production cum seizure list of revenue stamps that the revenue stamps were not seized by the Police; rather those were produced by the informant before the police alleging that the revenue stamps were seized from the residence of the petitioner. Prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the revenue stamps were forged or stolen.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajendra Nath Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1964) 3 SCR 289 has categorically held that Section 414 makes it an offence for a person to assist voluntarily in stealing or disposing of or making away with the property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen and the prosecution has to establish that the property recovered is stolen and that the accused provided help in its concealment and disposal as. The relevant paragraph is extracted herein below:
"14. Lastly, it was also urged that even if the identity of the articles recovered with the articles stolen be established, no offence under Section 414 IPC is made out against the appellant as the other 4 accused have been acquitted and it is not known whom the appellant is supposed to have helped in concealing the stolen property. Section 414 IPC makes it an offence for a person to assist voluntarily in stealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property. It is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 IPC that another person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is stolen property and that the appellant provided help in its concealment and disposal. .........."
7. In the case at hand, the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence in the form of oral or documentary form to prove that the revenue stamps were stolen. The recovery of stamps from the petitioner is also not proved as they were seized by P.W.2 and not by the Police, however if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the revenue stamps were recovered from the petitioner then also it cannot be said that the stamps were stolen as keeping revenue stamps is not an offence.
8. In the light of the above findings, I find it very difficult to rely on the prosecution case. The learned courts did not consider the case of the prosecution on proper appreciation of the evidence, facts and the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. There is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution case is not at all free from reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with and the petitioner deserves benefit of doubt.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant criminal revision application is allowed and the judgment dated 31.03.2015, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and judgment dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II FTC, Bokaro, are quashed and set aside.
10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
11. Let the copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/