Jharkhand High Court
Man Mohan Prasad Mehta Son Of Sri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1021 of 2012
Man Mohan Prasad Mehta son of Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mehta,
Resident of Village- Kutipisi, P.O.- Padma, P.S.- Barhi, Outpost-
Padma, District- Hazaribagh
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.V. Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Mahua Palit, A.P.P.
---
09/07.12.2021 Heard Mr. B.V. Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Ms. Mahua Palit, the learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the Opposite Party- State of Jharkhand.
3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against
the Judgment dated 05.09.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
30/2012 by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribag whereby and
whereunder the appellate court acquitted the petitioner for
offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and confirmed
the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code, and also modified the sentence for
the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by
reducing it from three years Rigorous Imprisonment to two
years Rigorous Imprisonment and set-aside the order imposing
fine. The appellate court directed the petitioner to pay
compensation of Rs.2,52,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. to
the victims whose details have been mentioned in the appellate
order within a period of three months clearly indicating that on
account of non-deposit of the victim compensation, the trial
court would recover the same in accordance with law.
4. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence dated 31.01.2012 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 1628/2004,
T.R. No. 654/2012, had convicted the petitioner under Sections
406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years for the offence
under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous
Imprisonment for 03 years for the offence under section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment
for 03 months. Both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. B.V.
Kumar and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha submitted that they have
taken instruction from the petitioner and the petitioner has
instructed that he is ready to deposit the compensation amount
as directed by the learned appellate court within a period of six
months from the date of the order that may be passed by this
Court. He submitted that the petitioner was only 20 years of age
on the date of commission of the offence and he has remained
in custody during trial for a period of 6 months 11 days and for
about 15 days during the pendency of this criminal revision
application and thus, the total period of custody of the
petitioner is for a period of about 7 months. The learned counsel
submitted that it appears that the petitioner alongwith the co-
accused, who was declared to be a juvenile, were alleged to
have committed the offence at tender age. Considering the fact
that offence was committed as back as in the year 2004 and 17
years have elapsed from the date of occurrence and the
petitioner has remained in custody for quite some time, some
sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence may be
modified to the period already undergone by him in judicial
custody and appropriate direction may be issued for payment
of the compensation amount to the victims of the case.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite
Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that there are
concurrent findings against the petitioner on the point of
conviction under section 420 IPC and so far as the sentence is
concerned, it is for the court to take an appropriate call in the
matter of sentencing. It further appears from the record that the
petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 406
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but the learned appellate
court acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406
of the Indian Penal Code and sustained the conviction for the
offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also
directed the petitioner to pay victim compensation amounting
to Rs.2,52,000/-.
Findings of this Court
7. In the present case, an Interlocutory Application being
I.A. No. 4790 of 2021 has been filed to bring on record that the
co-accused namely, Rajesh Prasad Mehta was declared to be a
juvenile and he was found guilty for the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and an order
under Section 15(d) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 was passed and a fine amount of Rs.2,000/-
only was imposed upon him and in default of payment of the
fine amount, he was ordered to go to Special Home, Dhanbad
for 15 days. The order of the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Hazaribag was passed on 31.07.2012 in G.R. No. 1628 of 2012 /
Enquiry No. 06 of 2012. A plea has also been raised in the
Interlocutory Application that principles of natural justice are
required to be followed while imposing direction to pay victim
compensation.
8. However, during the course of arguments, the matter was
adjourned twice and the learned counsel for the petitioner has
taken instruction from the petitioner that he is ready to deposit
the victim compensation amount of Rs.2,52,000/- before the
learned court below within a period of six months from the date
of communication of the order and has advanced his arguments
on the point of modification of the sentence only.
9. However, it is not in dispute that on the alleged date of
occurrence, the petitioner was only 20 years of age and the co-
accused was less than 18 years of age who was found guilty in
the inquiry conducted by the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Hazaribag as mentioned above.
10. This Court finds that the prosecution case is based on a
written report of one Janki Prasad Mehta (P.W.-6) and five
others who alleged that the petitioner and the aforesaid co-
accused namely, Rajesh Prasad Mehta had constituted one Janta
Gramin Committee and had promised the villagers that on
deposit of one rupee, it will fetch two to three rupees after
completion of two months from the date of deposit.
Consequently, with this promise, they took Rs.80,000/- from
Janki Prasad Mehta, Rs. 8,000/- from Sunil Lal, Rs. 8,000/- from
Sunita Devi, Rs. 1,33,200/- from Ramjee Prasad, Rs. 5,200/-
from Ruplal Prasad Mehta and Rs. 20,000/- from Suresh Prasad
Mehta and issued printed receipts of the said amount to them.
Upon completion of two months, when they started demanding
amount from the petitioner and the co-accused, they avoided
payment on some pretext or the other and finally, they refused
to return the amount. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the
police.
11. On the basis of the written report, Barhi P.S. Case No. 175
of 2004 was registered on 12.07.2004 under Sections 406, 419
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the
said co-accused. Charge-sheet was submitted against both the
accused persons under the aforesaid sections and subsequently,
the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Mehta was declared to be a
juvenile and his case was split up and was sent to the learned
Juvenile Justice Board for disposal.
12. In course of trial in the present case, altogether eight
witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.Ws.- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7 and 8 are the victims of the case.
13. P.W.-6, who is the informant of the case, stated in his
examination-in-chief that the petitioner formed Janta Gramin
Committee and assured the people of the locality that in lieu of
one rupee, the amount will be twice or one-and-a-half times
upon expiry of two months. The petitioner and the co-accused
collected money from the people during the period from
February, 2003 to August, 2003. The office was situated in the
house of the co-accused Rajesh Prasad Mehta. The collection
was done from the nearby villages also. He further stated that
he had deposited an amount of Rs.80,500/- and exhibited the
receipt issued to him. He also stated that after the collection of
money, the petitioner and the co-accused did not pay the
amount and left the village and when their fathers were
pressurized to bring them, they brought them on 10.10.2003 and
also assured in writing that they would return the money taken
by their sons. The agreement has been exhibited as Exhibit-4.
The First Information Report has been exhibited as Exhibit- 5.
The receipts of Janta Gramin Committee have been exhibited as
Exhibit- 3 to 3/13 as well as Exhibit- 1 to 1/4. All the aforesaid
victims who have been examined, have supported the
prosecution case, but P.W.-8 was declared hostile. However, the
evidence of P.W.-8 indicated that she had deposited the amount
through her mother.
14. The learned trial court recorded its finding that the P.Ws.-
1 to 7, in their evidence, have supported the prosecution case by
stating that the petitioner and the co-accused had opened Janta
Gramin Committee in the year 2003 and had assured that
within a period of one month, the amount deposited by them
would become twice. Under such assurance, they had
deposited money in Janta Gramin Committee for which the
petitioner had issued receipts in the name of the prosecution
witnesses which were marked as Exhibit- 3 to 3/13 and Exhibit
1 to 1/4. The receipts were under the signature and writing of
the petitioner which proved the collection of money by the
petitioner. The father of the petitioner vide Exhibit-4 had
assured the witnesses that he would return the money, but
ultimately the money was not returned. The learned trial court
recorded that the collected money was used by the petitioner
for his own purpose and he had committed fraud upon the
informant and other witnesses. The learned trial court acquitted
the petitioner for the offence under Section 419 of the Indian
Penal Code, but convicted the petitioner for the offence under
Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years for the
offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and
Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years for the offence under
section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.10,000/-
with default clause.
15. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences
on record and gave concurrent findings so far as the conviction
of the petitioner for offence under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, but acquitted the petitioner for the
offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the
ground that none of the witnesses has stated as to how the
petitioner had used the money for his own benefit.
16. This court finds that the judgements passed by the
learned court below convicting the petitioner for offence under
section 420 IPC by concurrent finding of facts after scrutinizing
the evidences on record including that of the victims supported
by documentary evidences are well reasoned judgement on the
point of conviction under section 420 IPC and in absence of any
perversity, illegality or material irregularity, no interference is
called for in revisional jurisdiction of this court. There is no
scope for reappreciation of materials or record and coming to a
different finding in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
impugned appellate court's judgement upholding the
conviction of the petitioner under section 420 IPC is upheld.
17. The learned appellate court, while upholding the
conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, thought it proper to set-aside the imposition of fine
of Rs.10,000/- and awarded victim compensation of total
amount of Rs.2,52,000/- under Section 357(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure to pay to the victims i.e. Janki Prasad
Mehta - Rs.80,000/-, Sunil Lal- Rs.10,000/-, Sunita Devi-
Rs.6,800/-, Ramjee Prasad Mehta- Rs.133,200/-, Suresh Prasad
Mehta- Rs.20,000/- and Mathura Prasad Mehta- Rs.2,000/-. The
learned appellate court further reduced the sentence of the
petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal
Code from Rigorous Imprisonment for three years to Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years.
18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has remained in
custody for a period of about seven months and has faced the
criminal case for around 17 years right from the year 2004 and
at the time of commission of offence, he was just 20 years of
age. It is not in dispute that the present offence is the first
offence of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has himself submitted that the petitioner is ready to
deposit the compensation amount within a period of six months
from today.
19. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of
this case, this court is of the considered view that the ends of
justice would be met if the sentence of the petitioner is modified
to some extent. Accordingly, the sentence modified by the
learned appellate court for offence under section 420 IPC is
further modified and confined to the period already undergone
by him in judicial custody with fine of Rs.10,000/- with a
further direction to deposit the fine amount as well as the
aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.2,52,000/- before the
learned court below within a period of six months from today.
In case of the non-deposit of the aforesaid fine amount as well
as compensation amount within the stipulated time-frame, the
petitioner would serve the sentence as directed by the learned
appellate court and the compensation amount would also be
realizable through the process of court as directed by the
learned appellate court.
20. The compensation amount of Rs.2,52,000/- so deposited
by the petitioner is directed to be remitted to the aforesaid
prosecution witnesses to the extent it has been mentioned in the
appellate court's judgement, upon due identification.
21. Accordingly, with the aforesaid findings and
modification of the sentence of the petitioner, this criminal
revision petition is hereby disposed of.
22. Pending interlocutory application is closed.
23. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court
concerned.
24. Let this order be communicated to the learned court
below through 'FAX/e-mail'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
