Jharkhand High Court
Uma Shankar Poddar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 828 of 2012
Uma Shankar Poddar ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P.
11/15.09.2021
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf
of the Opposite Party-State.
Submission on behalf of the petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has been convicted only under Section 409 of the Indian Penal
Code. He further submitted that the petitioner was working in a
school and it was alleged that the petitioner had issued the
receipts of fee collection from the various students which was to
be prepared in triplicate and different amounts and details were
mentioned in the receipts issued to the students as compared to
what were mentioned in the corresponding two counter-foils of
such receipts which were retained by the school authorities. He
submitted that the petitioner has been made scapegoat. In
support of his contention, he refers to the evidence of the defence
witness who had stated that the entire collection was made by
the informant of the case, who was the principal of the school,
and the counter foils of the receipts were prepared subsequently
under the dictates of the Principal (informant) who had
maintained a chart indicating the receipts with respect to each of
the students. The learned counsel further submitted that the
defalcation, if any, has been made by the Principal (informant) of
the school and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He also submitted that the entire responsibility of
fee collection was that of the Principal and not of the petitioner.
He submitted that the aforesaid aspects of the case have not been
properly considered by the learned courts below and as such, the
impugned judgments are perverse and cannot be sustained in
the eyes of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case
was instituted in the year 1998 and since then, 23 years have
elapsed and the petitioner was convicted on 30.03.2010 when his
age was 65 years and now, he is aged more than about 76 years
of age and is also suffering from various ailments. He also
submitted that the petitioner was ultimately terminated from his
services. He also submitted that the petitioner had remained in
jail custody from 05.02.1999 to 29.10.1999 during trial and also
from 03.12.2012 to at least 13.12.2012 when he was granted bail
by this Court during the pendency of the present criminal
revision and some days must have been taken by him to furnish
the bail bond and accordingly, the petitioner has already
remained in jail custody for more than one year. The learned
counsel submitted that considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of this case and also that no useful purpose would
be served by sending the petitioner, being aged about 76 years,
again to jail at this stage of his life, the sentence of the petitioner
may be modified and an appropriate order may be passed.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
5. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other
hand, opposed the prayers and submitted that there are
concurrent findings recorded by the learned court below and
admittedly, the documents i.e. the receipts did not contain the
signature of the Principal. He also submitted that the defence
witness has also stated that the counter receipts were prepared
by the petitioner, though alleged to have been prepared under
the dictates of the Principal. The learned A.P.P. submitted that it
has further come in evidence that it was the petitioner who was
working as an assistant in the school and he was entrusted with
the work of collecting the fees at the time of admission. He
submitted that it appears that the counter-foils of the receipts
were prepared subsequently, but the petitioner cannot run away
from his responsibility as it was the petitioner who had prepared
the counterfoils as well.
6. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that the impugned
judgments are presentable and have been passed after
considering all the materials on record and the petitioner has not
been able to point out any material indicating any perversity in
the impugned judgments. He submitted that there is no scope for
re-appreciation of evidences and coming to a different finding in
revisional jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned judgments
may not be interfered with.
7. However, advancing his arguments on the point of sentence, the
learned A.P.P. submitted that considering the total period of
custody of the petitioner which he remained during trial and
during the pendency of the present criminal revision application
and also the age, etc. as submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is for this Court to take a call on the sentence of the
petitioner. He further submitted that as the allegation against the
petitioner is that he defalcated an amount of Rs. 55,247/-, if this
court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, then
some appropriate fine may be imposed upon him which may be
remitted to the Bokaro Steel Plant, so that the said amount can be
used for the purposes of the school itself.
8. Arguments have been concluded.
9. Post this case for judgment on 20.09.2021.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/
