Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Paras Nath Yadav @ Parash Nath Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand ......Opp.Party on 16 May, 2019

Author: Amitav K. Gupta

Bench: Amitav K. Gupta

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           ----

I.A.NO.3456 of 2018 In Cr.Rev. No.880 of 2018

--

Paras Nath Yadav @ Parash Nath Yadav . . ...Petitioner.

Versus State of Jharkhand ......Opp.party.

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate.

For the State        : APP.
                           ------
11/16.05.2019        I.A.NO.3456 of 2018

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Saraikella in G.R.No.403 of 2002(T.R.No.09 of 2014) whereby the petitioner has been found guilty and convicted for committing the offence under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and default thereof, to further undergo R.I. of one year. The said judgment and order of sentence has been affirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Cr. Appeal no.31 of 2014.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below have failed to appreciate that there is no evidence whatsoever that this petitioner had misappropriated the amount or cheated the beneficiaries. That the beneficiaries, namely, P.Ws.4,5 and 6 in their testimony have deposed that they had received the money for repair and construction of their house. That Anil Singh Sardar, a co-villager had taken the money from them. The other witnesses have nowhere made any incriminating statements against this petitioner.

On the above ground prayer has been made for suspension of the conviction and sentence, during pendency of this revision.

3. Learned A.P.P., while opposing the prayer, has not controverted the fact that as per recital in the FIR and deposition of the witnesses the money was taken from them by one Anil Singh Sardar.

4. Heard. Perused the FIR as well as the evidence of P.Ws.3,5,6 and 7who are the beneficiaries. They have deposed that they have received the money for construction of the house and Anil Singh Sardar took the money from them and told them that he would construct their house. In view of the testimony of the witnesses a prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is, hereby, suspended during the pendency of this revision.

5. I.A.NO.3456 of 2018 is allowed and disposed off.

6. Lower court record has been received. Office to list this revision under the heading 'for hearing' on 09.12.2019.

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Biswas.