Jharkhand High Court
Vikrant Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1148 of 2014
------
Vikrant Kumar Singh .... .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
For the Petitioner (S) : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
For the State : APP
7/06.05.2022
The criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2014
passed in Cr. Appeal No.146 of 2014 by District & Additional Sessions Judge-VI,
East Singhbum, Jamshedpur whereby learned Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal, thereby upheld the judgment of conviction passed in GR. No. 3442 of
2012 by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. Against the judgment
of conviction by both the courts, this criminal revision application has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is no evidence on
record to suggest that petitioner has committed an offence and has taken money
in lieu of providing employment to the informant and other. She submits that there
is lack of evidence to suggest that money was paid to this petitioner. She further
argues that the appellant is merely an employee of firm, thus even if any amount
has been paid, it will be presumed that the same has been paid to the firm and not
to this petitioner. Lastly, she submits that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner
is on much higher side.
3. Learned APP opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner has
committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and thus he was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. He submits that there is
consistent evidence to reach at a conclusion that it is this petitioner, who has
duped eighteen boys on the pretext of providing them employment in Kuwait.
As per him, there is evidence on record to suggest that Rs.11,06,500/- was paid
to the petitioner, which the petitioner misappropriated. It is his contention that
there is no scope of interference in this revision application when there are
concurrent findings of fact by both the courts below.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the lower court
record.
5. The prosecution case is that one Kaushal Kumar along with 22 person
gave an information to the police that they were cheated by this petitioner
Vikrant Kumar, who was running an office at Jamshedpur, by taking
Rs.11,06,500/- from them on the pretext of providing job abroad. When the
petitioner could not provide job, they demanded their pass-port and money when
this petitioner tried to flee but was apprehended by the informant and other boys
and was handed over to the police.
On the aforesaid report, an FIR was instituted being Sitaramdera P.S. Case
No. 143 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 3442 of 2012. After conclusion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 420 IPC against this
petitioner. Charge was framed under Section 420 of the IPC to which the
petitioner pleaded "not guilty". Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the
prosecution. Documents such as several money receipts issued by this petitioner
on behalf of Reliance Technical Institute were marked as Exhibits. Photocopy of
the Visa was marked 'X' for identification and signature on the money receipts
were also exhibited. Bank deposit slips were also exhibited. The Trial court after
closing the evidence and after recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C,
heard the arguments of the parties and held that the petitioner was guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and thereafter imposed the sentence
for three years with a fine of Rs.2000/-.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal
being Cr. Appeal No. 146 of 2014 which was heard and ultimately vide
judgement dated 14.11.2014 the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
6. This is a revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. Provision under Section
397 Cr.P.C r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C gives power to the High Court or the Sessions
Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior
criminal court within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying himself
as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. The regularity of any
proceeding of such inferior court can also be looked into by exercising
jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court's power of revision
is under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, this Court is exercising its jurisdiction
to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings arrived at by the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court and to see whether the sentence is proper or
not. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appraise evidence
which has already been appraised by the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh
Vrs. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 6 SCC 650 at paragraph no. 13 held as
under:-
"13. The instant case is not one where any such
illegality was committed by the trial court. In the
absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or
in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for
the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High
Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a
finding different from the trial court. In the absence of
manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of
justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases
is not warranted."
7. This Court is not the court of appeal nor the Court of facts when this Court
is exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 or 401 of the Cr.P.C. The final court
of fact is the learned District Judge who can re-appreciate the evidence led in
trial.
8. In this case, I find that before the trial court five witnesses were examined.
The Trial court has discussed the evidence of all the witnesses. He has examined
the statement of P.W1 who said that this petitioner took Rs.11,06,500/- from him
and other eighteen persons for providing job in Kuwait. He stated that he gave
Rs.60,000/- through cheque and cash. He stated the detail of the cheque and the
amount of each cheques. He also stated that the petitioner took his pass-port
which was seized by the police and ultimately released in his favour from the
police station. He stated that a paper purported to be copy of Visa was also taken
by the petitioner with receipt of one ticket and he was directed to report to him
on 17.12.2011. When he along with others reached the place to meet the
petitioner, the petitioner told him that the phone of the concerned person who
was supposed to take them, is switched off and thus he cannot provide
employment to the informant. When the money which was paid was asked to be
returned, the petitioner did not return the same. Thus, the case was lodged. This
witness identified the accused and also the signature and other documents.
P.W.2 is the informant and the victim, who also stated that this petitioner took
money from him in lieu of providing job in foreign country. He stated that it is
this petitioner who had called him for interview and on his assurance he
deposited money in the office of this petitioner. He also narrated same lines as
narrated by P.W.1. He denied the suggestions that this petitioner had not taken
any money rather he is an employee of the company. P.W.3 also stated that it is
this petitioner who has taken money and was the main person in the entire
process. P.W.4 & 5 have stated in similar lines as that of P.W.3. I find that the
trial court had elaborately discussed all the evidence and applied the law and
found that the petitioner has cheated the informant and others, thus, held him
guilty under Section 420 IPC. The court below has convicted the petitioner and
sentenced him for three years for committing an offence punishable under
Section 420 IPC.
9. I have also gone through the Appellate Court judgment also. The
Appellate Court independently re-evaluated the evidence of all the P.Ws and had
gone through the documents and concurred with the findings of the trial Court.
The Appellate Court in detail, discussed the ingredients of Section 420 IPC and
applied the facts of this case as narrated by the witnesses and thereafter
concluded that the petitioner had deceived the informant and others, thus upheld
the conviction and imposition of sentence.
10. From what has been held above, I find that there is no illegality or
impropriety in both the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
Both the courts have concurrently held that it is this petitioner who had taken the
money on the pretext of providing job to the informant and others but had
cheated them. From the evidence, I find that offence punishable under Section
420 IPC is made out. On false assurance of providing job, the victims were made
to part with their money and this petitioner failed to provide any job and also did
not return their money. The intention to cheat was there from very inception of
the transaction. Thus, I find no illegality in the judgment of conviction by the
trial court, which has been upheld by the Appellate Court.
11. So far as sentence is concerned, I find that the trial court has imposed the
sentence of three years along with the fine of Rs.2000/- upon the petitioner.
Section 420 IPC provides for imprisonment up-to seven years and fine.
The trial court has imposed an imprisonment of three years, after considering
that it would not be proper to extend the benefit of provision of Probation of
Offenders Act. During course of argument the petitioner has contended that
petitioner has remained in custody from 18.11.2012 to 19.01.2015 which is for
more than two years two months. The FIR is dated 17.11.2012, the petitioner has
faced the rigorous of criminal proceedings for nine long years. Further he would
get some remissions for the period which he has already remained in custody. It
will not be proper to send the petitioner back to prison, after nine years to serve
a sentence of few months.
12. Considering the facts, this Court is of the opinion that suffice it would be
if sentence is reduced to the period which he has already undergone. This Court
by exercising revisional jurisdiction is only interfering with the sentence which
has been imposed upon the petitioner and thus reduce the same to the period
which he has already undergone. Thus with the aforesaid modification in the
sentence this Criminal Revision is partly allowed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/cp2
