Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through ... vs Manish Kumar on 1 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acq. Appeal (SJ) No.160 of 2019
The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner,
East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. ... ... Appellant
Versus
Manish Kumar ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. B.N. Ojha, Adv.
For the Respondent : none
---
06/01.12.2022: This appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated
18.06.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
in Cr. Appeal No.108 of 2019 by which judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 26.04.2019 passed by learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur in G.R.
No.1500 of 2009 (T.R. No.303 of 2019) has been set aside.
It appears that two interlocutory applications being I.A. Nos.11998
& 11997 of 2019, i.e. for limitation and leave to prefer appeal, have been filed.
It appears that for transfer of the shares of the Demat Account, the
alleged victim has approached the respondent and one co-accused. It has been
alleged that the respondent, in connivance with co-accused, transferred the
shares of the Demat account, in the account of co-accused namely, Rakesh
Ranjan Singh.
Initially, they have been charged under Section 409, 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, but the trial court has acquitted
them from all the charges except Sections 420 read with Section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code. That order of conviction has been challenged by filing
appeal being Cr. Appeal No.108 of 2019.
The appellate court vide its judgment dated 18.06.2019 has
considered entire facts, in detail, especially in paragraph-29 of the said
judgment, which is reproduced herein below:
"29. Now coming into the charges U/s 420 of the IPC inducing the
person to open an account in the company where the accused was
an employee cannot be considered to be illegally inducing as it is
the part of business of such employees to impress upon prospective
customers to open an account in their respective company hence if
the benefit of India Infoline Ltd. was projected by the appellant the
same cannot be considered to be inducing for the purpose of
cheating. The second part of the inducement that it is this appellant
who has induced the informant to deliver blank signed delivery
instruction slip has not been proved beyond shadows of doubt and
no reason has been assigned as to why this delivery instruction slip
was handed over to an employee of India Infoline Ltd. which was
required to be deposited with ICICI bank and was in fact deposited
with ICICI bank as it appears there is annexure IX series of the FIR
which bears the seal of ICICI bank hence there is absence of
sufficient cause to show that delivery instruction slips were
required to be handed over to the present appellant and there is
absence of any proof to show that the delivery instruction slips
were handed over to the present appellant. Considering these
aspects of the case, I find that charges U/s 420 of the IPC against
the present appellant was also not proved beyond shadows of
reasonable doubt."
From the above, it is evident that the ingredients of Sections 420 of
the Indian Penal Code is found missing and accordingly, this Court finds no
reason to grant leave to prefer appeal to this appellant. Otherwise also, the
appellant does not have any case on merit.
Considering the above fact, this acquittal appeal is hereby,
dismissed.
Consequently, pending Interlocutory applications also stand
dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi-
