Jharkhand High Court
Badal Chandra Pathak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 856 of 2013
Badal Chandra Pathak ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Mahtha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Advocate
---
Through: Video Conferencing
08/27.01.2021
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite party-State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned judgments are perverse, inasmuch as, the entrustment of
amount of Rs. 55,000/- has not been proved by cogent evidence as
no documentary evidence to that effect has been exhibited. It is not
disputed that some oral evidence has come in connection with
payment of Rs. 55,000/- to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the entire
dispute arises out of an agreement for execution of work executed
between the petitioner, the contractor and the government. The first
measurement in connection with the work was taken on 15.03.1998,
wherein the measurement was found to be to the extent of Rs.
43,622/- and after expiry of more than one year, another
measurement was taken dated 28.06.1999 where the work was
found to be executed to the extent of Rs. 17,853/-only. The learned
counsel has further submitted that the entire dispute arises out of
alleged non-execution of part of work arising out of agreement and
the dispute is in the realm of civil dispute.
5. The learned counsel submits that pursuant to an order of bail,
the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 37,147/- (55,000/-
minus 17853/-) vide cash receipt No. 99 dated 16.08.2002 which was
marked as Exhibit-A. He submits that merely because the petitioner
had deposited this amount pursuant to a bail order, the same does
not mean that the petitioner has admitted his guilt.
6. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel
submits that without prejudice to the aforesaid, he has no objection
if this amount of Rs. 37,147/- is converted into fine and is remitted to
the State. The learned counsel has further submitted that the age of
the petitioner is more than 60 years and he has remained in custody
for the period from 30.01.2002 to 16.08.2002 i.e. about six and a half
months and he has no criminal antecedent. The counsel has
submitted that the sentence may be confined to the period already
undergone in custody by the petitioner with enhancement of fine
amount.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-
State has opposed the prayer, but at the same time, she does not
dispute the fact that the dispute arises out of agreement between
the petitioner, the contractor and the State and initial measurement
dated 15.03.1998 was to the extent of Rs. 43,622/- and there was a
subsequent measurement dated 28.06.1999 which was found to the
extent of Rs. 17,853/-. It is not in dispute that there is no other co-
accused in the present case. She also submits that in case, this Court
is inclined to passed order as submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, then in such circumstances, the fine amount of Rs.
5,000/- should also be retained over and above the amount of Rs.
37,147/- as has been deposited by the petitioner vide cash receipt
dated 16.08.2002.
8. Arguments concluded.
9. Post this case on 01.02.2021.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
