Saluka Deogam @ Vishal Deogam vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1959 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                             Cr. Revision No. 961 of 2013

                     Saluka Deogam @ Vishal Deogam, son of Arjun Deogam
                                                      ...     ...     Petitioner
                                         Versus
                     The State of Jharkhand.
                                              ...   ...        Opposite Party
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party State: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P

---

Through Video Conferencing

---

09/21.06.2021 Heard Mr. Saurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party - State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 27.08.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2013 whereby the appeal has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been ultimately convicted under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court had convicted the petitioner and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.07.2013 was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Chaibasa in G.R. No.553 of 2010 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No.112 of 2010 for offence under Sections 406, 420 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that although the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner by referring to Section 34 as well as Sections 406, 420 and 323 read with of Indian Penal Code, but throughout the petitioner was the sole accused and accordingly section 34 of IPC cannot be attracted. He further submits that the learned trial court's judgment

indicates that charges were framed under Sections 323, 420, 406 and 452 of Indian Penal Code and there is no reference to section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the solitary point of law involved in the present case is that the basic ingredient for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not at all satisfied and it was specific case of the informant P.W.1 that a friendly loan of Rs.1,03,000/- was extended to the accused on different dates which was not returned and thereafter a Panchayati was held where the accused agreed to repay the amount in monthly installments of Rs.2,000/- but he did not act upon his promise. He submits that further specific case of informant P.W.1 was that the accused had taken one mobile and golden ring on the pretext that he was going to see a girl for marriage, but the same was also not returned. Learned counsel submits that there is no material on record to indicate that since beginning there was any ill intention or fraudulent intention of the petitioner and accordingly the conviction under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submits that the entire dispute is of pure civil nature and this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly the appellate court's judgment upholding the conviction under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code calls for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel has also referred to judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC 336; V.Y. Jose Vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 3 SCC 78; Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293; Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, New Delhi (2003) 5 SCC 257; Satischandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujrat and Another (2019) 9 SCC 148.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while opposing the prayer has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below so far as conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the State also does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was the sole accused and therefore there was no occasion for attracting Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State that it was the specific case of the informant, who was examined as P.W.1 that an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- was given as friendly loan on different dates to the accused and the same was not returned although subsequently an agreement to return the same by way of monthly instalment was also entered into between the parties, but the petitioner did not act upon the promise.

7. Arguments concluded.

8. Post this case for judgment on 25.06.2021.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav