Kalam Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 613 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Criminal Revision No.53 of 2020
                                 ----

Kalam Khan                                   .... .... Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Md. Yusuf                                 .... .... Opposite Parties
                                 ----
      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                 ----
For the Petitioner                     : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Adv.
For the State                          : A.P.P.
                                 ----

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

----

nd 04/Dated: 22 February, 2022

1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.132 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned court has uphold the judgment dated 24.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No.921 of 2016 corresponding to Azadnagar P.S. Case No.60 of 2016 arising out of C/1 Case No.555 of 2016.

2. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a complaint petition which has been registered as Azadnagar P.S. Case No.60 of 2016 under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. wherein it has been alleged that this revisionist has inducted Md. Yusuf Ansari as a tenant and subsequently he has entered into the development contract with the Builder and as such committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial has been conducted being G.R. Case No.921 of 2016. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused from both the charges on the ground that there is no entrustment to the accused and further so called allegation of cheating even if accepted with the Builder who has appeared and clearly stated that he has not been induced rather by voluntary act he has entered into an agreement with the accused.

3. The said order of acquittal has been challenged by filing an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2019 and the appellate court had upheld the order of the trial court by dismissing the appeal vide order dated 26.09.2019.

4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed both the orders stating that since the property, in question, has been entrusted to the accused and instead of returning to the complainant, the same has been handed over to the Builder by making an agreement and money has also been transacted between the builder and the tenant (the accused).

5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that when there is no evidence regarding inducting the accused as tenant rather only oral statement has been given by the complainant in his witness.

It is trite that the relationship between the landlord and the tenant does not result in the entrustment of tenanting premises. In the absence of any entrustment, offence under Section 406 is not made out. So far as offence under 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, both the court below have rightly held that the Builder, who has said to have been induced, has negated the said allegation rather they have stated that it was their voluntary act.

In view of above facts, the accused has been acquitted from the said charges.

6. Considering the above facts, this Court does not find any reasonable reason to interfere with the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application being Criminal Revision No.53 of 2020 stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-