Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Shankar Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1031 of 2012
Ravi Shankar Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
08/05.10.2021
1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned amicus appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of opposite party-State.
3. The present revision application was instituted and was
preferred directly from jail and there was delay of 19 days in
filing the present case which was condoned vide order dated
04.01.2013. In this revision application, the legality and validity
of the judgment passed by the court of 1st Additional Sessison
Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal No. 44/2011
is under challenge. The learned appellate court upheld the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2011
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 549/2009 arising out
of Sadar P.S. Case No. 76/2009. The learned trial court has
convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 406/427 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous
imprisonment for two years under Section 406 of IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 427 of IPC.
4. Learned amicus appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that the entire dispute in the present case arises out
of civil dispute between the parties, in as much as, the case of
the prosecution was that the petitioner being the Secretary of
NGO was entrusted with certain cloths for stitching skirts and
shirts for school children. But, upon measurement, those skirts
and shirts were not found fit as per the tender or specification
given from the side of the prosecution. He submits that the
learned courts below have not recorded any finding of
dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner, rather the
entire finding is in connection with entrustment and not
discharging the work entrusted to the petitioner as per the
specification. The learned amicus has submitted that in such
circumstances, the basic ingredients for offence under Section
405 of IPC which defines "criminal breach of trust" is missing
and the entire dispute is in the realm of civil dispute.
5. The learned amicus has further submitted that there were
two categories; one was for students from Class-V to VII and
the other was for students from Class-VIII to X and while
undertaking the measurement, the petitioner was never
informed and as per the records, only one sample each of skirt
and shirt was given under each of the category i.e., altogether
four samples were given for measurement. He submits that a
number of skirts and shirts were stitched and measurement of
one skirt and shirt with regard to each category could not have
led to the conclusion that the entire stock was not matching
with the specifications of the tender. He further submits that as
per the evidence of P.W.-1, two persons, namely, Shekhar
Pradhan and Badrinath Munda were the persons, who were
entrusted for the purposes of measurement. But, so far as
evidence of P.W.-6 Meghnath Gope is concerned, who is said to
have measured the cloths, no such work of measurement was
assigned. The learned amicus submits that the evidence of
P.W.-6 is of no consequence as he was never directed to
measure the stitched skirts and shirts. The learned amicus
submits that the aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been
properly considered by the learned courts below and
accordingly, the impugned judgments are perverse and cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law.
6. The learned amicus has also submitted that there is no
evidence on record to indicate as to what was the total length of
cloth handed over to the petitioner and it is not the case of the
prosecution, that any portion of the length of cloth entrusted to
the petitioner, has been misappropriated by him. He has also
submitted that it is a simple case of entrustment of cloth for
stitching and the final stitched items were not found
satisfactory in terms of parameters prescribed as per the
contract between the parties and as such, no criminality is
involved in the present case. He also submits that the entire
prosecution case is based on the measurement taken at the back
of the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party-State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has
submitted that the impugned judgments are well-reasoned
judgments based on evidence on record and they are neither
perverse nor illegal and no material irregularity has been
indicated by the learned amicus appearing on behalf of the
petitioner calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
8. Arguments concluded.
9. Post this case on 16.11.2021 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
