Yogendra Nath Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ( Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3705 Jhar

                                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Revision No. 219 of 2004
                                 -------

Yogendra Nath Singh                         ...... .... Petitioner
                                Versus
The State of Jharkhand ( Through C.B.I)      ..... .... Opp. Party

                              --------
CORAM :          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                              --------
For the Petitioner     : Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the Opp. Party-CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
                         M/s. Chandana Kumari & Nitish Parth Sarthi,
                         A.C to A.S.G.I.
                              --------

C.A.V. On: 12/07/2023                             Pronounced On: 04/10/2023

      Heard the parties.

The petitioner Yogendra Nath Singh has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 08.01.2004, passed by Sri Arun Kumar Roy, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2000, whereby and wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.1999, passed by Dr. Sayad Akhtaruddin, learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Dhanbad in T.R. No.6 of 1999, arising out of R.C. Case No.9(A)/91(D), holding the petitioner Yogendra Nath Singh guilty of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I for one year along-with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the aforesaid offences and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo S.I for one month each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a typed report of the informant B. K. Birdi, alleging therein that he received information from reliable sources that the petitioner Yogendra Nath Singh, while posted and functioning as Assistant Store Keeper, Central Store, Shed No.15, F.C.I., Sindri Unit, Dhanbad between the period of April 1989 to July 1990, fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated 33,606 liters of diesel, worth Rs.1,38,457.22 and thereby, causing undue pecuniary loss to F.C.I, Sindri Unit, Dhanbad and causing corresponding undue pecuniary gain to himself.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and

documentary evidence. The defence has adduced oral evidence in this case. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

Mr. V.P.Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being Assistant Store Keeper had only issued slips for filling of diesel in the vehicles, belonging to F.C.I. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had filled lesser quantity of diesels in the tanks of the vehicles so as to cause pecuniary gain to himself.

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has admitted that there is no evidence to the effect that apart from issuing of vouchers to the drivers for filling the diesels in the vehicles of F.C.I, Sindri, the petitioner had any role in pilfering the diesel.

On perusal of the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that all the witnesses have stated that the petitioner Yogendra Nath Singh used to issue vouchers on the demand note of the drivers of various vehicles.

Arun Kumar Verma P.W.2 has stated that this witness used to prepare requisitions of notice on the basis of demand note made by the drivers and the same were forwarded to the petitioner who used to issue vouchers for filling up diesels in the vehicles of the department. He has proved the requisitions in evidence, which are Exhibits-3 series. At paragraph-4, he has stated that the issue slips were issued under the signature of the petitioner Y. N. Singh.

Madhu Kumar Prasad P.W.3, Z. Hussain P.W.5, Chhangur Prasad P.W.6, Anjan Lal Mahto P.W.7, Md. Mukshid P.W.9 and Md. Mubarak P.W.10, all had made requisitions for supply of diesels in their vehicles. They have stated that the petitioner used to issue them vouchers for filling up diesels in their vehicles.

Surendra Nath Mishra P.W.11 has proved several demand notes, which are Exhibit-14 series. He has stated at paragraph-5 that 2000 liters of diesels were demanded and 2000 liters have been shown to be supplied.

Witnesses Durga Charan Vishwakarma P.W.12, Nandjee Prasad P.W.13, Ganga Dhar Mukherjee P.W.15, Devendra Prasad Sinha P.W.17, Rama Shankar Prasad P.W.18 and Ram Chandra Singh P.W.19, all have stated that the petitioner used to issue vouchers for supply of diesels against the requisitions made by the drivers.

Radhey Shyam Kuril P.W.20 is the Investigating Officer of this case.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not recorded the statements of staffs, who used to supply diesels from the Central Store of F.C.I, Sindri. He has further stated that he had not physically verified the quantum of diesels which was available in the store. He has also stated that the Central Store is surrounded by the boundary wall and it is guarded by C.I.S.F all the times. He has further stated that any articles, which is entered and which leaves the store, are checked by the C.I.S.F personnel.

From the aforesaid oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is apparent that the petitioner used to only issue vouchers for supply of diesels on the requisitions made by the drivers. It was not his duty to fill the diesels in the vehicles. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had issued fake vouchers or for that matter, he had made wrong entries by issuing vouchers for filling up larger volume of diesels, whereas lesser volumes of diesels were filled in the vehicles. The Investigating Officer neither recorded the statements of any staff of the store, who used to fill the diesels in the vehicles nor has he verified from the stock as to what was the quantity of diesels, which went missing.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

This revision application is, accordingly, allowed.

The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below is set aside.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J.) B.S/