Jharkhand High Court
Gopichand Oraon Son Of Shri Purna ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 561 of 2014
Gopichand Oraon son of Shri Purna Oraon, resident of
Village- Piska Nagri, P.O.- Nagri, P.S.- Nagri, District-
Ranchi ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
With
Cr. Rev. No. 453 of 2014
Smt. Parwati Devi wife of Sri Jaleshwar Soni, resident of
Piska Nagri, P.O.+ P.S.- Nagri, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
--
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate
: Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
(In Cr. Rev. No.453 of 2014)
: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Amicus Curiae
(In Cr. Rev. No.561 of 2014)
For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
(In both the cases)
--
21/30.11.2021
1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.453 of
2014 on I.A. No.4722 of 2020 as well as on the main
criminal revision application.
2. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, the learned Amicus Curiae
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.561 of
2014.
3. Heard Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned A.P.P. appearing on
behalf of the Opposite Party-State in the both the cases.
4. From perusal of the impugned Judgments, it appears that
these two petitioners, who have filed separate criminal
revision applications, had filed separate criminal appeals
before the learned appellate court against the Judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence passed by the
learned trial court. The appeal filed by Smt. Parwati Devi
was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2014 and the
appeal filed by the other petitioner namely, Gopichand
Oraon was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2014.
Another appeal was filed by the co-convict namely,
Binodanand Mishra which was numbered as Criminal
Appeal No.21 of 2014.
5. All the three separate criminal appeals were disposed of
by the court of the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-X, Ranchi vide a common Judgment dated
19.04.2014 and all the criminal appeals were partly
allowed. The learned appellate court upheld the
conviction and sentence of the co-convict Binodanand
Mishra for the offence under Section 409/120B of the
Indian Penal Code and upheld the conviction and
sentence of the present petitioners for the offence under
Section 406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. However, the
learned appellate court has set aside the conviction and
sentence of all the convicts for the offence under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them from the
charge thereunder.
6. All the convicts were tried by the court of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi and vide Judgment
of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.01.2014
passed in G.R. Case No.3926 of 2010/ Trial No.79 of 2014.
The co-convict Binodanand Mishra was found guilty for
the offences under Sections 409/420/120B of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and the
present two petitioners were found guilty for the offences
under Sections 406/420/120B of IPC. The present
petitioners were sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 03 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each
for offence under Section 406 of IPC and were further
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years
and a fine of Rs.5,000/-each for the offence under Section
420 of IPC. The substantive punishments were directed to
run consecutively i.e. one after another and in default of
payment of fine, each convict was directed to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners
7. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 453 of 2014 submitted that the
petitioner-Smt. Parwati Devi was the President of the
Village Education Committee for the part of the period
involved in the present case and the main allegation
against her was in connection with the amount of
Rs.9,32,609/- which was credited in the bank account on
22.07.2010 and an amount of Rs.9,30,000/- was debited
from that account on 02.08.2010. He submitted that the
said amount was wrongly credited in the account and
therefore, under the instructions of the higher authorities,
the amount was directed to be refunded and accordingly,
the amount was debited. He further submitted that the
petitioner-Smt. Parwati Devi was co-signatory to the
cheque, but the cheque was signed by her for the
purposes of return of the money to the authority who had
credited the said amount in the bank account, but the
same was misused by the co-convict namely, Binodanand
Mishra.
8. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that
Binodanand Mishra has repaid the entire amount
involved in the present case to the Government and in
order to bring this aspect on record, one Interlocutory
Application being I.A. No.4722 of 2020 has been filed for
adducing additional evidence. He submitted that the co-
accused namely, Binodanand Mishra has virtually
admitted his entire guilt and has deposited the defalcated
amount and therefore, no role as such for commission of
the offence under Section 406/120B of IPC is attributable
to the petitioner. He advanced his further arguments on
the Interlocutory Application filed for taking additional
evidence as well as on the main evidence and submitted
that the document annexed with the Interlocutory
Application is an admitted document and the same may
be permitted to be adduced as additional evidence to
which the Opposite Party-State may file a reply.
9. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the
learned trial court did not convict the petitioners for
offence under Section 120B of IPC, but the learned
appellate court while convicting the petitioners has also
included Section 120B of IPC and therefore, the impugned
judgment passed by the learned appellate court is
perverse. He also submitted that at the stage of framing of
charge, no bifurcation of the amount was given as the
entire period involved in the present case is much prior to
tenure of the petitioner - Smt. Parwati Devi, when she
became the member of the Village Education Committee
and therefore, the charge itself was vague. He submitted
that the basic ingredients for the offence under Section
406 of IPC are not satisfied in the present case, in as much
as, the amount debited was credited in the account of the
co-accused namely, Binodanand Mishra and the property
i.e. the money having not credited in the account of the
petitioner-Smt. Parwati Devi, the offence under Section
406 of IPC is not at all made out against her and the
petitioner has already been acquitted for offence under
Section 420 of IPC. He submitted that the aforesaid
aspects of the matter have not been properly considered
by the learned courts below and therefore, the impugned
judgments are fit to be set aside.
10. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the
petitioner-Gopichand Oraon in Cr. Rev. No.561 of 2014
submitted that the Exhibits-A, D and E have not been
properly considered by the learned courts below, in as
much as the amount which was debited from the account,
was ultimately returned by the present petitioner-
Gopichand Oraon who was the President of the Village
Education Committee during the period prior to Smt.
Parwati Devi. He further submitted that the impugned
judgments are perverse on account of non-consideration
of the aforesaid defence exhibits i.e. Exhibit-A, D and E.
The learned Amicus Curiae adopted the other arguments
advanced by the learned Senior counsel in Cr. Rev.
No.453 of 2014.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
11. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite
Party-State Mr. Suraj Verma, on the other hand, opposed
the prayers and submitted that there are concurrent
findings recorded by the learned courts below for the
offence under Section 406 of IPC. He submitted that it is
not in dispute that the bank account was operative by
virtue of the joint signature of the President of the Village
Education Committee in which Gopichand Oraon was the
first President and was succeeded by Smt. Parwati Devi.
He submitted that the joint signature was with the co-
convict namely, Binodanand Mishra who was the Head
Master of the school. The learned A.P.P. submitted that it
is also not in dispute that the withdrawal of the amount
from the account was under the joint signatures and
admittedly, the amount was debited and thereafter
credited in the account of the co-convict namely,
Binodanand Mishra and therefore, it cannot be said that
the petitioners had no role to play. He submitted that the
amount could not have been debited in absence of the
corresponding signature of the petitioners.
12. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that irrespective of
the fact as to whether Section 120B of IPC is involved or
not, the petitioners had their independent roles to play
and therefore, inclusion of Section 120B of IPC by the
learned appellate court has no consequence and the
learned appellate court has not given any separate
punishment under Section 120B of IPC. He further
submitted that so far as the charge is concerned, the same
was not vague and it was within the knowledge of the
petitioners as they knew their respective periods working
as the President of the Village Education Committee and
also the various debit and credit entries which were made
in the account and therefore, vagueness in the charge, if
any, has no bearing in the matter. He also submitted that
the learned courts below have given concurrent findings
so far as offence under Section 406 of IPC is concerned
and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences on
record and coming to a different finding. He submitted
that the counsel for the petitioners have not pointed out
any illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the
impugned judgments calling for any interference.
13. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that the matter
relates to defalcation of public money which was either
meant for the purposes of construction related to the
school building or the same was credited in the account
by mistake, but it is not in dispute that on the spot, no
construction had come up and the amount was debited
under the signatures of the petitioners during their
respective tenures during which the co-convict namely,
Binodanand Mishra was a co-signatory and therefore, it is
immaterial as to who has ultimately taken the benefit.
14. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that the impugned
judgments passed by the learned courts below, so far as
the conviction of the petitioners under Section 406 of IPC
is concerned, do not call for any interference. He also
submitted that no lenient view may be taken in the matter
as there is proved allegation of defalcation of public
money by the petitioners.
I.A. No.4722 of 2020
15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on I.A.
No.4722 of 2020 filed on behalf of the petitioner-Smt.
Parvati Devi in Cr. Rev. No. 453 of 2014, this Court finds
that the Interlocutory Application has been filed under
Section 391 of Cr.P.C. for taking additional evidence
stating that the co-convict namely, Binodanand Mishra
has given in writing on 02.10.2010 that all the money
withdrawn during the tenure of the petitioner-Smt.
Parvati Devi was withdrawn by him only and he has
deposited a total amount of Rs.9,32,609.00 through three
demand drafts dated 07.11.2016, 02.03.2017 and 16.03.2017
in the office and a No Objection Certificate vide Memo
No. 1429 dated 26.12.2019 has been issued to him by the
District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project,
Ranchi. The petitioner claimed that the entire defalcated
amount has been deposited. This Court is of the
considered view that return of the defalcated amount,
that too by the co-convict, subsequent to registration of
the criminal case on 07.09.2010, conviction of the accused
persons on 13.01.2014 and dismissal of the criminal
appeals on 19.04.2014 is of no consequence and has no
bearing on the merit of the case. It cannot be disputed that
the petitioners were co-signatory of the issued cheques
which led to defalcation of public money. Accordingly,
I.A. No.4722 of 2020 is hereby rejected.
Findings of this Court
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the materials on record, this Court finds
that pursuant to the direction contained in Memo dated
07.09.2010 of the District Superintendent of Education,
F.I.R being Nagri P.S. Case No.59 of 2010 was registered
under Sections 406/ 409/ 420 / 120B of IPC. The written
information was filed by the Head Teacher of
Government Primary School Hindi, Nagri. It was alleged
in the F.I.R. that the accused Binodanand Mishra in
connivance with co-accused namely, Gopichand Oraon
and Smt. Parwati Devi, who had been the Presidents of
the Gram Education Committee one after another had
illegally withdrawn the money kept in the account
no.6653 belonging to the said Samiti with Bank of India,
Nagri Branch. It was alleged that Rs.5,74,100/- the earlier
allotment together with Rs.9,32,609/- current allotment at
the time of F.I.R which was meant for school building
construction was illegally withdrawn. After completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against all
the three accused persons for offences under Sections 406,
409, 420/120B of IPC and charges were framed on
19.07.2011 under Sections 406, 409, 420/120B of IPC
against all the accused persons.
17. During trial, altogether 13 witnesses were examined.
P.W.-1Md. Taib is a retired Head Master, Government
Middle School, Nagri; P.W.-2 Phool Kumar Tigga was a
Teacher, Government Primary School, Nagri; P.W.-3 Rita
Das is Informant of the case and was the Head Mistress,
Government Primary School; P.W.-4 Deepak Kumar
Keshri is a Shop Keeper; P.W.-5 Seikh Asim was Block
Education Extension Officer, Mandar; P.W.-6 Banke
Bihari Singh was the Principal Zilla School, Chaibasa;
P.W.-7 Ashok Kumar Singh was the Chief Manager, Bank
of India; Ratu Road; P.W.-8 Hina Naj Parveen was the
Prakhand Karyakarm Padhadikhari, Ratu Road; P.W.-9
Ganesh Kumar was a Junior Engineer, Jharkhand Siksha
Pariyojana, P.W.-10 James Binod was the Manager, S.B.I.
Main Road; P.W.-11 Vijay Kumar Jaiswal was the
Manager, Bank of India, Nagri; P.W.- 12 Naresh Swarnkar
is a Businessman and P.W.- 13 Sudhir Kumar Choudhari
is the Investigating officer of the case.
18. A large number of documentary evidences were also
exhibited from the side of the prosecution. Exhibit-1 is the
written report, Exhibit-2 is photo copy of cheque dated
14.10.2009, Exhibit-3 is letter dated 07.10.2010 of Bank of
India alongwith bank statement, Exhibit-4 is certificate
issued from Bank of India, Ratu Road, Exhibit-5 is Xerox
Copy of Cheque dated 14.07.2008, Exhibit-6 is Xerox Copy
of Credit Voucher in the name of Naresh Swarnkar i.e.
P.W.-12, Exhibit-7 is Bank Statement of Account of
Binodanand Mishra, Exhibit-8 is the Statement of Account
no. 6653 from which account the amount was debited,
Exhibit-9 is Computer Generated statement of accounts of
Account standing in the name of Gram Shiksha Samiti,
Nagri and Exhibit-10 is the formal F.I.R..
19. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioners
were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the
petitioner-Gopichand Oraon stated that he had returned
the money and the petitioner Parwati Devi stated that she
had put signature on the cheque under the instruction of
Binodanand Mishra in order to return the amount to the
authority. On behalf of the defence, one witness was
examined as D.W.-1 Champa Oraon who was a Private
Teacher and five documents were brought on record and
exhibited. Exhibit-A is the carbon copy of the letter dated
09.03.2007, Exhibit-B is the photocopy of cheque dated
09.03.2007, Exhibit-C is the letter dated 20.08.2008 issued
from the Accountant, Ranchi of Jharkhand Education
Pariyojana, Exhibit-D is the carbon copy of the letter
dated 15.10.2008 sent to Zilla Karyakaram Padhadhikari,
Jharkhand Education Pariyojana, Ranchi and Exhibit-E is
the Xerox copy of cheque dated 14.10.2008. Enquiry report
has been marked as Exhibit-X on behalf of the defence.
20. The learned trial court considered the evidences on record
and also discussed the defence evidence and recorded in
Para-40 of the trial court's judgment that Exhibits A, B, D
and E do not ipso facto prove that the amount mentioned
in those cheques were in fact deposited in the account of
Jilla Karyakaram Padadhikari and was of the view that
those cheques were not on record and it was not apparent
as to whether those cheques were in fact deposited or not.
Exhibits- B & E do not bear the seal of the bank.
21. The learned trial court while discussing the evidence of
P.W.-3, who is the informant of the case, found that the
co-convict namely, Binodanand Mishra did not give the
charge of the finance to the Informant. Thereafter, the
account statement of the school got issued and from that
statement, it was learnt that about Rs.9,32,000/- meant for
construction of the school building had come in the
account of Gram Shiksha Samiti and that account was in
Bank of India and the same was being operated jointly by
the President and the Secretary. It was also learnt from
the statement that the entire money was withdrawn
jointly by Binodanand Mishra and Parwati Devi. She also
stated that the co-accused Gopichand Oraon was the
President prior to Parwati Devi and the money for that
purpose was also withdrawn in his period as well. The
money was withdrawn, but building was not constructed.
During cross examination, she added that the enclosure
filed with Exhibit-1 has been filed by her with the written
report, though it does not contain the name of Parwati
Devi.
22. So far as the evidence of P.W.-5 is concerned, it appeared
that Binodanand Mishra got transferred an amount of
Rs.9,30,000/- in his personal account from the amount of
Rs.9,32,609/- which was to be returned and it was done
prior to receiving of letter dated 09.08.2010 which was the
letter by which a direction was issued to return the
amount. It was also learnt that Rs.3,97,000/- and
Rs.2,77,900/- was transferred to the account of
Binodanand Mishra. When this fact came to his
knowledge, he gave information by attaching all the
documents to the District Superintend to Education-cum-
D.P.O. Pradip Chaubey who gave an order to P.W.-3 to
lodge F.I.R against the three accused persons. He also
deposed that the amount was being withdrawn with joint
signatures of the then Presidents. He identified Exhibit-3
and stated that Rs.3,97,000/- and Rs.2,77,900/-totaling
Rs.6,74,900/- and Rs.9,32,000/- was the loss caused to the
Government Exchequer. He added that before filing the
case, an enquiry was conducted by Range Education
Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. He admitted that the entire
amount has gone to the account of the accused no.1
Binodanand Mishra.
23. P.W.-2 also supported the prosecution case and stated
that she got the charge of the school, but not that of
finance.
24. The learned trial court recorded at Para-17 of its judgment
that from conjoint reading of the statements of P.W.-2,
P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 it appeared that A1 i.e. the accused
no.1 Binodanand Mishra did not hand over the charge of
all the finances of the school on his superannuation to
P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and the account of Gram Shiksha
Samiti of the school was jointly operated by A1
(Binodanand Mishra), A2 (Gopichand Oraon) and A3
(Parwati Devi) in their presidential period. A2 was the
President prior to A3. It also appeared that A1 with the
joint signature of A3 and A2 made withdrawal of
Rs.9,30,000/-, Rs.3,97,000/- and Rs.2,77,900/- from the
account of Gram Shiksha Samiti, Nagri. P.W.-2 became in
charge of the school after superannuation of A1 and she
was followed by P.W.-3.
25. This Court finds that the aforesaid findings recorded by
the learned trial court in Para-17 is based on materials on
record and no perversity or illegality has been pointed out
in connection with the aforesaid findings recorded in
Para-17 of the trial court judgment. The withdrawal of the
amount from the Gram Shiksha Samiti and the facts that
for a part period, the petitioner-Gopichand Oraon was the
President and for the subsequent period, the petitioner-
Parwati Devi was the President, are not in dispute. It is
also not in dispute that the amounts could be withdrawn
only through the joint signature of the President and the
Secretary.
26. The learned trial court considered the defence witnesses
from Para-38 onwards and also considered the Exhibits A,
B, D and E at Para-40. The learned trial court recorded its
finding at Para-41 and 42 which read as under:
"41. Having heard the rival submission and going through
the evidence on record, it appears that the P.W.-12 had
account in Bank of India, Ratu, the number of the same
was 490120110000101 during the period in question and
the P.W.-12 had admitted that the A-1 transferred
Rs.6,18,000/- in his account by the cheque upon which he
deducted Rs.53000/-, the cost of ornaments the A-1 had
purchased, and returned the rest amount to him, in this
way the content of Ext-8 has been admitted by him and
this fact has also been admitted by the A-1 in his
statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The Ext-8 & 9 have been sent
to the I.O. (P.W.-13) by the letter no; Nagri / Vikuj/10-
11/33 dt 7-10-2010 (Ext-3). So, this is an official
communication and has been sent in the official discharge
of duty by the P.W.-11. More so the P.W.-11 has stated
that this statement has been verified by him and it bears his
signature and seal of the bank on each page. And from
perusal of the Ext-9, it appears that Rs.6,18,000/- was
debited from the Gram Siksha account
no.494310100006653 on 18-07-2008 and credited to the
P.W.-12 on 18-07-2008 through cheque no.012607. So far
the conjoint reading of the Exhibit-3, 9, 4, 5 and 6, it is
crystal clear that A-1 had given Rs.6,18,000/- to the P.W.-
12 through the Cheque no.012607 of account
no.494310100006653 of Gram Siksha Samiti. And from
the Ext-6, it is apparent that the P.W.-12 deposited the
cheque no.012607 in his account no.490120110000101 of
Bank of India on 14/07/2008, which was debited from the
account of the Gram Siksha Samiti 494310100006653 on
18-07-2008. This is clear cut embezzlement of public
money by the A-1 & A-2 for own purpose.
42. Furthermore, from perusal of the evidence, it also
appears that in the year 2006--07, Rs.6,74,900/- in two
installment was given to the account 494310100006653 of
Gram Siksha Samiti by the department. In that period the
A-1 was the Secretary and the A-2 was President of the
Samiti. And in the year 2010-11, Rs.9,32,609/- was given
to the account of Gram Siksha Samiti. The District
Authority has directed vide letter no.2092 dt. 9-08-2010 to
return that amount because of non-availability of the land.
And by that time the A-1 had retired on 31-07-2008."
27. The learned trial court recorded its finding at the end of
Para-45 that the three accused persons hatched criminal
conspiracy and made embezzlement of Government
money to the tune of Rs.6,18,000/-, Rs.2,80,000/- and
Rs.9,30,000/- and the said money was given to Gram
Shiksha Samiti for construction of school building of
Rajkiya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Nagri, but the building was
not constructed. Accordingly, the learned trial court held
that the prosecution has been able to prove the case
beyond all reasonable doubt and held Binodanand Mishra
guilty of offence under Section 409/420/120B of IPC and
held Gopichand Oraon and Parwati Devi guilty of the
offence under Section 406/420 and 120B of IPC. However,
while sentencing them, no separate punishment for the
offence under Section 120B of IPC was given.
28. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the
learned trial court, this Court finds that the present
petitioners were convicted under Section 406/420/120B of
IPC and accordingly, the argument of the learned counsel
for the petitioners that they were not convicted under
Section 120B of IPC is not correct and therefore, the
argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they
have been convicted for the first time by the appellate
court by referring to Section 120B of IPC is also not
correct, rather the appellate court has upheld the
conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section
406/120B of Indian Penal Code.
29. So far as the appellate court is concerned, the appellate
court also considered the evidences on record and while
considering the conviction of the accused under Section
420 of IPC vide para 12 and 13, was of the view that the
most important ingredient of offence of cheating is
deception on the part of the accused and parting with
money by the persons who deceived. The learned
appellate court was of the view that in this case, there is
neither any such allegation made against the accused, nor
there is any evidence on that count that the money was
sent to the school on the basis of fraudulent or dishonest
demand. Ultimately, the learned appellate court acquitted
all the convicts for the offence under Section 420 of IPC by
holding that the basic ingredients of offence under Section
420 of IPC were not satisfied. The learned appellate court
considered the ingredients of the offence of criminal
breach of trust including the dishonest intention of the
present petitioners vide para 17 and 18 of the impugned
judgment and recorded findings against them. The
learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the
petitioners for the offence under Section 406/120 B of IPC
and that of Binodanand Mishra for the offence under
Section 409/120 of IPC and even the sentences of the
petitioners for the said offence have been upheld.
30. The learned courts below have scrutinized the material on
record and have given concurrent findings in connection
with the role of the petitioners while upholding their
conviction under section 406/120B of IPC. It is not in
dispute that the amount was withdrawn from the bank
account in which these two petitioners were signatories to
the cheque during the relevant period of their
presidentship. So far as the argument on behalf of the
petitioners that the basic ingredients for the offence under
Section 406 of IPC are not satisfied is concerned, this
Court finds that merely because the amount has been
found to be credited in the account of one of the convicts
and not the present petitioners, the same is not sufficient
to hold that the basic ingredients for the offence under
Section 406 of IPC are not satisfied.
31. Upon perusal of the provision of Section 405 of IPC, this
Court finds that the conversion of the property for their
own use is not an essential requirement for convicting /
punishing a person under Section 405/406 of IPC. The
basic ingredients of Section 405 of IPC are as follows:
(I) Entrusting any person with property or with any
dominion over property
(II) That person entrusted (a) dishonestly
misappropriating or converting to his own use that
property; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of
that property or wilfully suffering any other person
so to do in violation
(i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in
which such trust is to be discharged, or
(ii) of any legal contract made touching the
discharge of such trust
Section 406 of IPC provides the punishment for
committing the offence of criminal breach of trust.
32. Upon scrutinizing the impugned judgments as well as the
materials on record, this Court finds that the basic
ingredients of the offence under Section 406/120B of IPC
are fully satisfied against the petitioners. This Court finds
that the conviction of the petitioners is not only under
Section 406 of IPC, but it is read with Section 120B of IPC.
33. So far as the arguments of the petitioners regarding vague
charge is concerned, this Court finds that there is no
doubt that the amount has not been specifically bifurcated
at the stage of charge, but the petitioners had full
knowledge about their respective roles and the periods
for which they were the Presidents and the entire
evidences were put to the petitioners at the stage of their
seeking response under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. Therefore,
even assuming that there was some vagueness in the
charge, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case as the
petitioners were granted full opportunity to present and
defend the allegations levelled against them during the
course of trial.
34. So far as the defence exhibits are concerned, the same
have been duly considered by the learned courts below.
Exhibit-A is dated 09.03.2007 which mentions about
certain cheque dated 09.03.2007. Exhibit-B is the
corresponding cheque dated 09.03.2007. Exhibit-C also
relates to some deposit of the year 2007. This Court finds
that the learned trial court while considering Exhibits-A,
B, D and E has clearly recorded that these exhibits by
themselves do not prove that the amount mentioned in
those cheques were in fact deposited in the account of Jila
Karyakram Padhadhikari. Thus, the argument advanced
on behalf of the petitioner-Gopichand Oraon that the
entire amount was returned was rejected by the learned
courts below by recording concurrent findings.
35. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court finds no
illegality or perversity in the conviction of the petitioner
for the offence under Section 406/120B of IPC.
Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the
present criminal revision applications, which are hereby
dismissed.
36. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
37. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are cancelled.
38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
Appreciation for Amicus Curiae and Payment
39. Before parting, this Court observes that vide order dated
13.09.2021, Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate was appointed as
an amicus curiae in Cr. Rev. No.561 of 2014. This Court
records its appreciation for the valuable assistance
accorded by the learned Amicus Curiae in final disposal
of the case. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal
Services Committee is directed to ensure payment of the
legal remuneration to him upon submission of bills as per
the usual norms.
40. The office is directed to provide a copy of this order to
Mr. Yogesh Modi, the learned Amicus Curiae and also to
the learned Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal
Services Committee.
41. Let the lower court records be sent back immediately to
the court concerned.
42. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through FAX/E-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
