Jharkhand High Court
Naresh Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. ... on 26 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 414 of 2016
------
Naresh Prasad Gupta, Son of Shighashan Prasad Gupta @
Singhashan Prasad Gupta, resident of Haudih, P.S. - Nasriganj, P.O.
- Nasriganj, District - Rohtash (Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
CAV On Dated- 22.04.2024 Pronounced On 26.07.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.02.2016 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 3574 of 2006, whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Sections 406 / 407 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 407 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation, has been affirmed.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that informant's brother is Proprietor of M/s Birla Bhandar, Lalpur Kudra, who used to Page 1 of 5 send wheat from his aforesaid firm to outside of the State. It is alleged that on 20.10.2006, the informant got loaded with 425 bags of wheat containing 60 kg each on the Truck No. JH-11B-1745 to be transported to Kendelwal Flour Mill, Putki. The drivers of said truck were Sri Naresh Saw and Rajendra Singh, but on contact with the concerned flour mill, it was informed that wheat was not reached there. Hence, informant started searching the drivers of the said vehicle and came to know that the said drivers have sold the wheat bags to someone else. In course of search of drivers, on 13.11.2006 the informant found the driver Naresh Saw at Putki Bazar and with help of his friend apprehended him and handed over at Putki Police Station and also presented written report. On the basis of said written report, F.I.R. was registered under Sections 406 and 407 of Indian Penal Code against Naresh Prasad Gupta and Rajendra Singh.
4. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted only against the main driver Naresh Saw and other accused Rajendra Prasad was not sent up for trial. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed for trial and the learned trial court after considering oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution has held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 406 and 407 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. of one year for the offence under Section 406 along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and sentenced to undergo S.I. of two years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 407 of I.P.C. Both sentences were directed to be run concurrently with default stipulation.
Page 2 of 5
5. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court against the petitioner was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2013 preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, which was heard and decided vide judgment dated 11.02.2016 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of appellant / petitioner was upheld and confirmed and appeal was dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision.
6. Assailing the impugned judgments and order, as discussed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned courts below have failed to take into consideration that goods allegedly loaded on the truck belonged to Pradip Kumar Khandelwal, Proprietor of M/s Khandelwal Flour Mill, who has not instituted any case and the informant has no cause of action against the present petitioner. It is further argued that no concrete documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution showing any entrustment of property / goods to the present petitioner and during investigation, the alleged wheat was not recovered by the police. No witness examined by the prosecution have alleged that they have seen while unloading wheat from truck at any place in the way to transportation by the present petitioner. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients for the offence under Section 406 / 407 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and both the court below have committed perversity and acted beyond the evidence on record in holding the petitioner guilty and sentencing him. The sentence imposed upon the petitioner is also Page 3 of 5 disproportionate to the guilt proved against him. The petitioner was also not extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 without recording any special reasons. Hence, impugned judgments and order passed by the learned trial court as well as by the appellate court are not sustainable under law and is fit to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.
7. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below regarding commission of breach of trust by the petitioner, the driver of a carrier. He was entrusted with wheat to be transported by him at the destination, but in the way, he has misappropriated the same and consignment was never reached at the destination. There is concrete prove that the petitioner was driver of Truck No. JH-11B-1745 at the time of consignment of the goods and he was entrusted with 425 bags each containing 60 Kg Wheat (Exhibit-1), which did not reach at its destination for reasons best known to the petitioner. There is no defence plea of the petitioner except denial from occurrence and plea of innocence. It is further submitted that all the ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 I.P.C., punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C. and its aggravating form as defined under Section 407 of the I.P.C. to be severely punishable have been proved beyond doubt against the petitioner. Although in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner might have been punished for the offence under Section 407 of the I.P.C. and no separate punishment for Page 4 of 5 the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. is required, but the same cannot furnish any valid reasons, calling interference in this revision, inasmuch as both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. The offence proved against the petitioner is quite serious in nature. Hence, petitioner does not deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This revision has no merit and is fit to be dismissed.
8. I have gone through the record of the case and perused the oral as well as documentary evidence along with impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. It appears that there is concurrent finding and the documentary evidence referred by the trial court proved beyond doubt that wheats loaded on the truck for the transportation, of which petitioner was driver, has been misappropriated in the way and never reached at destination. The above facts are not controverted by the defence. Therefore, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioner and no merit in this revision, which stands dismissed.
9. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 26/07/2024 Sunil/-NAFR Page 5 of 5