Bhushan Swanshi @ Bhusan Sawansi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3707 Jhar

                                          1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Revision No. 18 of 2011
                                -------

Bhushan Swanshi @ Bhusan Sawansi ...... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opp. Party

--------

CORAM :          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                               --------
For the Petitioner     : Ms. Anjali Kumari, Amicus Curiae
For the State          : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P
                               --------

C.A.V. On: 12/06/2023                               Pronounced On: 04/10/2023

      Heard the parties.

The petitioner Bhushan Swanshi @ Bhusan Sawansi has filed this revision

application against the judgment dated 03.06.2010, passed by Sri D. N. Upadhyay,

learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (as His Lordship was the then) in Criminal

Appeal No.46/2010, whereby and wherein, learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi

partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by affirming the judgment of conviction

but modifying the order of sentence dated 10.03.2010, passed by Sri Manoj Kumar

Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi in G.R Case No.2364/2008,

arising out of Bundu P.S. Case No.60/2008, holding the petitioner guilty of the

offences under Sections 406/34 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby,

sentencing him to undergo R.I for three years along-with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for

each of the said offences and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was

further directed to undergo S.I for two months for each of the default.

Learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi modified the sentence of the

petitioner and reduced the sentence to undergo R.I for two years for each of the

offences, along-with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the aforesaid offences.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a typed report of the

informant Manju Bala Mahto, alleging therein that she alongwith other persons had

given Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner for procuring job. The petitioner

misappropriated their money. Subsequently, this case was instituted.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced oral evidence. The

petitioner has also adduced documentary evidence in support of his case. On the

basis of the evidence available on record, both the learned Trial Court as well as

the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt

of the petitioner.

The informant Manju Bala Mahto P.W.1 has stated that she had given

Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner but subsequently, the petitioner had returned her

money. She has compromised the case with the petitioner.

Sahchari Kumari P.W.2, Ekeshwar Mahto P.W.3, Kirti Kumar Mahto P.W.4,

Amulya Mishra P.W.5 and Madhav Mahto P.W.6 are the victims. They have stated

that they had given Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner as he had promised them that he

will secure job for them. After sometime, when the petitioner did not help them in

securing job, they demanded their money back. The petitioner did not return their

money and accordingly, this case was instituted.

All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. There is nothing in

their cross-examinations to doubt their veracity. All these witnesses have

corroborated each other on the point that the petitioner had taken Rs.1,50,000/-

from each one of them for providing them job, but subsequently, he

misappropriated the said amount.

Kameshwar Mahto P.W.7 is the father of Nalita Kumari Mahto and

Ekeshwar Mahto, He has stated that he had given Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner for

securing job for them. He has stated that the petitioner did not help his children in

securing job, after which, he demanded his money back, but the petitioner did not

return his amount. There is nothing in his cross examination to doubt his veracity.

From perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the defence, it

appears that co-accused Angad Munda had compromised the case with some of the

victims and an agreement was drawn to this effect.

From the aforesaid oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent

that all the victims have stated in unison that they had given Rs.1,50,000/- each to

the petitioner for securing job for them, but the petitioner misappropriated the said

amount.

Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove

its case against the petitioner for committing offence under Sections 406/34 and

420/34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the learned

Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to a finding

regarding the guilt of the petitioner. The modified sentence by the learned appellate

court does not require any interference.

This revision application is accordingly, dismissed.

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

(Ambuj Nath, J.) B.S/