Surya Prakash Sharma vs C.B.I./ A.C.B., Lucknow
2025 Latest Caselaw 7487 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Surya Prakash Sharma vs C.B.I./ A.C.B., Lucknow on 30 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34234
 
Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 585 of 2025
 

 
Revisionist :- Surya Prakash Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- C.B.I./ A.C.B., Lucknow
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ghulam Mohammad Kamil,Narendra Bahadur Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
 

1. Heard Sri Ghulam Mohammad Kamil, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI.

2. The instant criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. seeks to assail the validity of a judgment and order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge CBI (Prevention of Corruption) Court No. 1 / Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2023 filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate CBI, Lucknow in Case No. 2 of 2007 arising out of RC No. 25(S)/2025, under Section 420 IPC, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the trial court convicting the revisionist for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo two years simple imprisonment and pay Rs. 10,000/- as fine, has been upheld.

3. The Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/ Lucknow had lodged the FIR giving rise to the aforesaid case in compliance of an order dated 12.09.2005 passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 7 of 1999, stating that S/Sri Surya Prakash Sharma (the Revisionist), Ram Prakash Sharma and Smt. Prabhawati Sharma, Chairman-Cum- Managing Directors/Directors of M/s Bhartiya Gramin Vikas Vitt Nigam Ltd., having its registered Head Office at Indalganj, Near Railway Station, Mohibullapur, Sitapur Road, Lucknow, entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other and collected about Rs.2 crores from thousands of investors under Alp Bachat Patra, a recurring deposit scheme, Gramin Vikas Patra, a fixed deposit scheme, Golden Gramin Vikas Patra another fixed deposit scheme. After collecting huge amounts under the aforesaid schemes from the investors the Chairman-Cum-Managing Directors/Directors of M/s Bhartiya Gramin Vikash Vitt Nigam Ltd. absconded leaving no trace and thus he cheated the poor investors. In this context Shri Ran Vijay Tiwari and 20 others had already filed Company Petition no.7 of 1999 in this Court and this High Court had issued directions for registration and investigation of the case by CBI.

4. Co-accused Ram Prakash Sharma was the father of the revisionist and he committed suicide on 26.04.2001. The other co-accused Smt. Prabhawati, Chairman is the wife of the revisionist and she is not an educated woman. During investigation it came to light that all the offending acts were done by the revisionist himself and he had forged signatures of his father and his wife.

5. It was stated in the charge sheet that Rs. 49,31,72,450/- were deposited by the investors in various accounts of the company, out of which Rs. 49,19,175/- were withdrawn and thereafter the accounts became dormant. Maximum policies got matured during the period 1998 to 2000 but the revisionist was not in a position to repay the money and he went missing. The Registrar of Companies attached the office of the company but in spite of it, the revisionist sold away the office property on 26.10.1999 for a sale consideration of Rs. 6 lakh. The revisionist was arrested from Jaipur on 05.02.2006.

6. During trial as many as 32 prosecution witnesses were examined who proved numerous documents. On the basis of the evidence, the trial court came to a conclusion that acting as Director M/s Bhartiya Gramin Vikash Vitt Nigam Ltd., the revisionist had transferred the money invested by 72 investors in various schemes of the company, to his own accounts and he misappropriated the money for his own use and did not refund the same to the investors. Thus the revisionist has committed the offence under Section 420 IPC. The trial court sentences the revisionist to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as fine. Upon failure to pay the amount of fine, the applicant would undergo simple imprisonment for an additional period of two months.

7. The revisionist challenged the aforesaid order by filing Appeal No. 63 of 2023, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, CBI (Prevention of Corruption), Lucknow.

8. Assailing the validity of the order of conviction and the appellate order, the learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that both the courts below have committed a gross error in refusing to accept the contention of the revisionist that the revisionist was paying the amount to its customers and the amount could not be refunded to some of the customers for the sole reason that a theft had taken place in the company's office in which the record relating to some of the investors had gone missing. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that non-payment of money to some of the investors for the reason that their record had gone missing in a theft, does not make out the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC.

9. Replying to the aforesaid submission, Sri. Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has submitted that in the FIR lodged on 30.11.1997 regarding the alleged theft committed in the office of the company, a list of the stolen articles was mentioned which included some computers, stabilizers, ACs., FAX machine etc. There was no mention of the theft of any record. Further, the theft allegedly took place in the year 1997 whereas the present FIR was lodged in the year 2005 and the applicant could not give any explanation as to what steps did he take for refunding the money of the investors in the intervening period of 8 years since the alleged loss of records in the year 1997 till filing of the FIR in the year 2005.

10. Having gone through the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court, I am of the view that both the judgments are well reasoned judgments, given after due consideration of the entire relevant material. The learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to make out any illegality in the judgments warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

11. The revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed at the admission stage.

Order on I.A. No. Nil of 2025

12. The revisionist has filed this application seeking benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 stating that the revisionist has attained the age of 61 years, he is suffering from high blood pressure, heart disease, joint pain, weak eyesight etc. The revisionist has spent about 2-1/2 months in custody during trial before he was released on bail. After passing of the judgment dated 19.03.2025, the revisionist has again been taken into custody and he has already spent about 5 months' period in jail.

13. The revisionist has given an undertaking that he will maintain good behavior if he is extended the benefit of probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

14. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the revisionist.

15. Accordingly, while maintaining the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this Court is of the view that the revisionist be granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and he be released on probation of good conduct and behavior on his submitting a personal bond to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during a period of two years from the date of this judgment.

16. The address of the revisionist as mentioned in the memo of revision is Village Shahdora, P.S. Kichha, District Uhdam Singh Nagar (Uttrakhand). The proviso appended to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act provides that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.

17. As the revisionist does not have a fixed place of abode in the place over which the trial court exercised jurisdiction, it is provided that the revisionist shall be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years, upon his submitting a personal bond and two sureties by persons having a fixed place of abode at a place over which the trial court exercises jurisdiction.  

(Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

Order Date: 30.05.2025

Pradeep/-