Jharkhand High Court
Jogindra Mahato @ Jogindra Nath ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 470 of 2003
Jogindra Mahato @ Jogindra Nath Mahato son of Debu Mahato,
resident of Parbatpur, P.S.- Chandan Kiary, District Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shibu Mahato son fo Suchand Mahto, resident of Parbatpur
P.S. Chandan Kiary district Bokaro.
... ...Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
06/02.12.2021
1. Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner alongwith Ms. Ruby Yadav, Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. The present criminal revision application is directed
against the judgment dated 19.02.2003 passed by the learned 1st
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No.
84/1993 whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed
appeal preferred by the petitioner and has confirmed the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated
22.05.1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Bokaro at Chas in C.P. Case No. 15/1982 corresponding to T.R.
No. 729/1993.
4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner for
the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and had
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years
for the same offence.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the
impugned judgments, has submitted that the complaint was
filed as back as on 02.02.1982 and much time has elapsed from
the date of the filing of the complaint. He further submitted that
the judgment of conviction was passed on 22.05.1993, wherein
the age of the petitioner was recorded as 30 years and
accordingly, the present age of the petitioner is more than 58
years and considering the present age of the petitioner and the
fact that the petitioner has faced the rigors of criminal case for a
long time and the matter relates to offence under Section 406 of
IPC and there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner as per
the impugned orders, sentence may be modified by limiting it
to the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody in
connection with the present case.
6. It has been mentioned at para-1 of the present petition
that the petitioner has surrendered on 11.06.2003 after the
judgment dated 19.02.2003 passed by the learned appellate
court. He was directed to be released on bail by this Court vide
order dated 08.07.2003 and thereafter, a few days must have
been taken to furnish the bail bond. The learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for some
time during trial as well as for some time during the pendency
of the present petition.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party-State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has
submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the
learned courts below after scrutinizing the materials on record
and therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the
impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional
jurisdiction. He submitted that so far as sentence of the
petitioner is concerned, it is for the court to take a call
considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Findings of this Court
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the
prosecution case is based on a complained filed on 02.02.1982
alleging that on 15.09.1981, the accused, who is the nephew of
the Complainant received a cheque of Rs. 8,143.38 for
depositing it in Bank of India, Chas Branch in account No. 438,
but the petitioner did not deposit the same and encashed the
said cheque by putting forged signature of the Complainant.
Further the petitioner opened a new account in the aforesaid
bank without the knowledge and consent of the complainant by
projecting himself as the Complainant.
9. After recording the solemn affirmation of the
complainant, cognizance was taken for offence under Section
420 of IPC and after recording the evidence of the witnesses
before charge, charge was framed under Section 406 of the IPC
against the petitioner on 20.03.1987 which were read over and
explained to the petitioner in Hindi, to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. During trial, the Complainant examined altogether six
witnesses in support of his case including himself as P.W.-3 and
the Assistant in the Bank of India, Chas Branch as P.W.-6.
11. P.W.-3 fully supported his case in his examination-in-
chief as mentioned in the complaint petition. he has fully been
cross-examined from the side of the defence before charge and
after charge, but remained consistent in his testimony.
12. So far as P.W.-6 is concerned, he is the Assistant at the
place of occurrence, Bank of India, Chas and he has supported
the case of the Complainant and proved the bank papers in
which, the petitioner had opened a card in the name of the
Complainant bearing account No. 11534 which was marked as
Ext.-1; deposit slip No. 11534 dt. 25.05.1981 was marked as Ext.-
2; account opening card of Siboo Mahato bearing Account No.
7720 was marked as Ext.-3 and its Pass Book was marked as
Ext.-4; Account Opening Card No. 7130 dated 17.02.1981 was
marked as Ext.-5 and Deposit Slip No. 589387 dated 15.09.1981
was marked as Ext.-6. he has proved the signature of Ganesh
Ch. Mahato in Ext.-1 which was marked as Ext.-1/1. Signature
of G.G. Mahato in Ext.-3, which was marked as Ext.-3/1.
Signature of Siboo Mahato in Ext.-3 which was marked as 3/2.
Counterfoil of deposit of Rs. 8,143.38 by cheque was marked as
Ext.-7 and counterfoil of Rs. 15,944.40 deposit in the name of
Siboo Mahato was marked as Ext.-8. He has also been fully
cross-examined from the side of the defence.
13. P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 have fully supported the case o fthe
Complainant and stated that they had gone to the Bank
alongwith the Complainant and the petitioner for depositing
the money, which the Complainant had received as a cheque.
So, these witnesses proved the entrustment to the petitioner
and later on, they came to know that the petitioner has
withdrawn Rs.7,000/- from the bank by putting forged
signature of the Complainant.
14. The learned trial court after considering the evidences
recorded its finding that the Complainant from time to time
deposited the money in the bank through the petitioner and the
petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs. 7,000/- by putting forged
signature of the Complainant in his bank account. After
recording this finding, the learned trial court convicted the
petitioner for offence under Section 406 of the IPC and
sentenced him accordingly.
15. The learned appellate court also scrutinized the evidences
on record and clearly held that there was no merit in the appeal
and found no reason or ground to interfere with the judgment
of conviction and the order of sentence and accordingly upheld
the same. However, it has come on record that the present
offence is the first offence of the petitioner.
16. During the course of arguments and from the records of
this case, it is apparent that the petitioner is the nephew of the
Complainant and an amount of Rs.7,000/- was ultimately
withdrawn by the petitioner from the bank account of the
Complainant by putting forged signature of the Complainant in
the bank account. This Court finds that the learned courts
below have scrutinized the documentary as well as the oral
evidences adduced before the court and have returned
concurrent findings based on materials on record. No illegality
or perversity, as such, has been pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner calling for any interference in the
conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of
IPC.
17. Considering the fact that the case was instituted as back
as in the year 1982 and about 39 years have elapsed from the
date of the incident and the present age of the petitioner is more
than 59 years and the present offence is the first offence of the
petitioner, this Court is of the view that that ends of justice
would be served, if the sentence of the petitioner is modified to
some extent. The petitioner has also remained in custody for
some time as pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
18. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby
modified and limited it to the period already undergone by him
in judicial custody in connection with the present case with a
fine of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the
learned court below within a period of three months from the
date of communication of a copy of this order to the learned
court below. Out of the total fine amount, Rs.20,000/- is
directed to be remitted to the Complainant and in case of his
death, to his legal heirs, upon due identification.
19. Upon deposit of the fine amount as aforesaid, the
petitioner as well as his bailors will stand discharged from their
liabilities under the bail bonds. In case, the fine amount is not
deposited within the stipulated time frame, bail bonds
furnished by the petitioner will be immediately cancelled by the
learned court below and the petitioner would serve the
sentence as imposed by the learned court below.
20. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification of sentence,
the present criminal revision application is hereby disposed of.
21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
23. Let the lower court records be sent back to the learned
court below.
24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Mukul
