Vijay Mohan Raju vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 1401 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vijay Mohan Raju vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 February, 2024

Author: Navneet Kumar

Bench: Navneet Kumar

                                          1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Criminal Revision No. 977 of 2019
     Vijay Mohan Raju                                          --- --- Petitioner
                                      Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand
     2.Manish Kumar Singh                              --- --- Opposite Parties
                                            .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Seema Kumari Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P.

10/09.02.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2

2. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.05.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2019 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi whereby the learned lower appellate court has acquitted the opposite party no.2 of the charges by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2019 passed in G.R. Case No. 4511 of 2015 corresponding to T.R. No. 949 of 2019 arising out of Dhurwa (T) P.S. Case No. 196 of 2015 whereby the opposite party no.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs.4000/- and a default sentence of 4 months S.I. separately under both the Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is based upon the F.I.R, which was instituted on the basis of the written report of the informant (P.W.3) i.e., Vijay Mohan Raju (appellant herein) given to the Officer-in-Charge of Tupudana O.P. on 24.07.2015. It is stated by the informant (P.W.3) that for the purpose of sale and purchase of piece of land having Khata No.160 Plot No.102, Rakba 7 decimals at the rate of Rs.1,55,000 per decimal, an agreement was executed between the Petitioner and Manish Kumar Singh, the Opposite Party No.2. The said Manish Kumar Singh (O.P. No.2) had taken money from the Petitioner which is all together a sum of Rs.10,53,000 for which money receipt has been given by Manish Kumar Singh(O.P. No.2). After taking all the valuation money for 7 decimals of land, Manish Kumar Singh denied to execute the registration of the sale land in favour of the Petitioner, and on request made by the Petitioner, Manish Kumar Singh agreed for the execution of the registry of the said land in his favour on 23.05.2012 but at the time of

registration he fled away from the Office of the Registrar, Ranchi as a result of which the registration of the said land could not take place. On 16.06.2012 the landlord had cancelled the power of attorney given to Manish Kumar Singh due to non-compliance of the said power of attorney properly. The said Manish Kumar Singh denied to return the money of the Petitioner when asked for and threatened him with dire consequences.

4. On the basis of the said written submission a formal F.I.R was drawn vide Dhurwa (T) P.S. Case No. 196 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015 for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC and investigation of the case commenced.

5. Further, it appears that after completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted and thereafter learned court below took cognizance and on 25.11.2016 learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi had framed charge against the accused / opposite party no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 406/420 of the IPC and the trial of the case commenced.

6. Further, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi after conducting the trial convicted the opposite party no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 406/420 of the IPC in G.R. Case No. 4511 of 2015 , T.R. No. 949 of 2019 vide judgment dated 29.01.2019.

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi, the opposite party no.2 (Manish Kumar Singh) had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which was finally disposed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi vide judgment dated 10.05.2019 under which the opposite party no.2 (Manish Kumar Singh) was acquitted of all the charges and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Ranchi in the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 4511 of 2015 was set aside.

8. Being aggrieved with the decision of the lower appellate court, the informant (P.W.3) the petitioner Vijay Mohan Raju is before this Court in the present Criminal Revision Application against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned appellate court which is under challenge.

9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned

judgment dated 10.05.2019 is not maintainable in view of the fact that the learned lower appellate court has committed gross error in observing that there was nothing in the F.I.R. to suggest that the opposite party no.2 has committed criminal breach of trust and committed cheating and forgery. It has further been submitted that the learned court below has erred in observing that the prosecution could not bring on record any evidence to suggest that the opposite party no.2 had no power of attorney to sell the land to the petitioner. Further, it is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned court below has not taken into consideration the fact that the opposite party no.2 could not bring on record any document to suggest that signature in the money receipt (Ext.1) was not his signature and the learned lower appellate court also did not take into consideration the Ext. 2 from which it would be clear that stamp drawn by the petitioner was returned and the transaction involving sale and purchase of the land to the petitioner's wife was separate and independent transaction and nothing to do with the transaction involving petitioner and the opposite party no.2 Manish Kumar Singh. Further it is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned lower appellate court did not take into consideration the fact that no independent witness has been examined on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to support the claim that the land was sold to the petitioner's wife in the same consideration amount of the money which was paid by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2 and thus the learned lower appellate court has committed gross error in setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 4511 of 2015 and allowing the criminal appeal No. 44 of 2019 preferred by the opposite party no.2 and therefore this criminal revision application may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the learned lower appellate court has rightly appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the opposite party no.2 and no error or illegality have been found in the impugned judgment. It has been pointed out that the learned lower appellate court has rightly appreciated the fact that the land in question has been sold to the wife of the informant (petitioner's wife) by the

owner of the land and the alleged agreement to sale was executed by the opposite party no.2 under the power of attorney of the original land holder from whom petitioner's wife has purchased the land which is an admitted fact and therefore, there is no question of any cheating or forgery because the land for which the agreement to sale was executed has been converted into sale deed by a proper sale by the owner of the land to the wife of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 had executed the said agreement to sell the land under power of attorney which was executed by the land owner in favour of opposite party no.2 and later on the same land was sold to the petitioner's wife by the original land owner after revoking the power of attorney given to the opposite party no.2 and thus neither any offence under Section 420 nor any offence 406 of the IPC is made out and therefore, the lower appellate court has rightly acquitted the opposite party no.2 from the charges leveled against him and there is no illegality in the same and there is no legal point involved to interfere in the impugned judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2019.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case including the lower court record at the trial stage as well as at the appellate stage.

12. It is found that the prosecution has been able to examine five witnesses as under:

1. P.W.1 Anil Kumar

2. P.W.2 Jai Prakash Sinha

3. P.W.3 Vijay Mohan Raju, Informant

4. P.W.4 Vir Bahadur Singh

5. P.W.5 Arvind Kumar Apart from the oral evidences, the prosecution has also adduced documentary evidences which are as under:

1. Ext.1- Token made by accused Manish Kumar Singh in respect of taking money.

2. Ext.-2 - Signature and seal of Sub Collector Ranchi on returned stamp.

3. Ext-3- Written report of the Informant.

4. Ext. 3/1- Endorsement on the written report.

5. Ext.4- Formal F.I.R.

6. Ext. X- Photocopy of registered sale deed no.

142/1997/2013 dated 01.02.2013

13. On the other hand the opposite party no.2 in his defence has also examined two witnesses:

1.D.W.1-Rajiv Ranjan Verma

2.D.W.2-Manish Kumar Singh Apart from that, documentary evidences in the form of Ext. A series (Ext. A to A3) have also been adduced on behalf of the opposite party no.2, which are said to be money receipts.

14. P.W.1 Anil Kumar is the brother of the informant P.W.3. From his deposition it appears that he has no knowledge about the case because he has categorically stated that he did not know as to whether the land in question has been registered in favour of Manisha Kumari, wife of Vijay Mohan Raju (informant P.W.3) or not . While, as a matter of fact it is admitted case of the prosecution that the land in question i.e., 7 decimals of land situated in Mauza Dungri has been registered by the land owner Rajiv Ranjan Verma (D.W.1) in favour of Manisha Kumari, wife of the informant P.W.3

15. P.W.2 Jai Prakash Sinha has stated that the land at Mauza Dungri, which is the subject matter of agreement between P.W.3 and the opposite party no. 2 has been registered in the name of wife of the informant P.W.3 by the land owner Rajiv Ranjan Verma (D.W.1)

16. P.W.3 Vijay Mohan Raju-informant of the case has stated that a sum of Rs. 10,53,000/- was given by him to Manish Kumar -opposite party no.2 for the purchase of the land pertaining to khata no. 160, plot no. 102 measuring 7 decimals at the rate of Rs.1,55,000/- per decimal but even after taking the said amount i.e., Rs.10,53,000/- the registry was not done by the opposite party no.2 and thereafter the case was instituted. In the cross examination this witness has admitted that the said Manish Kumar Singh ( Opposite party no.2) was holding the power of attorney given by the said owner Rajiv Ranjan Verma (D.W.1) for the said land. But the said power of attorney was revoked by the land owner. This witness has also admitted that the said land has been registered in the name of wife of the petitioner Manisha Kumari on 01.02.2013 but he did not know as to what amount was given to Rajiv Ranjan Verma. This witness P.W.3 has identified the Xerox copy of the sale deed of the same land of 7 decimal, marked as Ext. X for identification, which was registered in the name of wife of this Informant witness P.W.3

(Petitioner) and the deed was executed by the land owner Rajiv Ranjan Verma (D.W.1).

17. P.W.4 Vir Bahadur Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has categorically stated in his deposition that the subject matter of dispute i.e., 7 decimal of land has been purchased by the wife of the informant (Petitioner-P.W.3) on 04.01.2013 through registered sale deed from the owner of the land and he has also identified the Xerox copy of the sale deed, which is already marked as Ext. X for identification. The investigating officer after investigation has also stated that the land for which the entire transaction of money was done between the informant P.W.3 and the opposite party no.2 was in fact got registered subsequently in the name of the wife of the informant P.W.3 by the land owner D.W.1 Rajiv Ranjan Verma. P.W.4 in para 9 of his testimony has stated that in the F.I.R if the informant had stated that the land in question had been registered in the name of his wife, then the case would not have been registered because on the basis of the same transaction of money the sale deed was executed by the land owner Rajiv Ranjan Verma in favour of the wife of the informant (Petitioner-P.W.3) for the same piece of land, as is evident from para 8 of the statement of this witness P.W.4.

18. P.W.5 Arvind Kumar is another investigating officer examined as formal witness. He has proved the endorsement on the written report marked as Ext. 3/1 and the formal F.I.R is marked as Ext.4 . P.W.5 has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that Rajiv Ranjan Verma (D.W.1) was the real owner of the land in question and the accused opposite party no.2 had entered into a transaction of sale aforesaid piece of land on the basis of power of attorney given by real owner D.W.1 to Opposite Party no.2, which was later on withdrawn and he futher stated that he came to know that the informant has directly talked to the owner Rajiv Ranjan Verma and got the land registered in the name of his wife.

19. On the other hand D.W.1 Rajiv Ranjan Verma examined on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has categoricaly stated in his deposition that the opposite party no.2 had received the money for the sale of land in question on his behalf on the basis of the power of attorney which was later on revoked by him and entire money received by Manish Kumar Singh was given to him and on that basis after revoking the power of attorney he got the land registered in favour of wife of the informant on the basis of said consideration money taken by the opposite party no.2

from petitioner and this is an admitted fact by the informant P.W.3 that the land in question have been registered in the name of his wife by the original land holder Rajiv Rajan Verma (D.W.1) and thus the version of informant is totally false, fabricated and concocted and no case of cheating and forgery alleged to have been committed by the opposite party no.2 against the informant or his wife.

20. D.W.2 is the opposite party no2. himself, who has also admitted this fact that money was taken for sale of land on behalf of D.W.1 from the informant P.W.3 and later on the said land was registered on the basis of money given by the informant P.W.3 and therefore, there is no question of cheating alleged to have been committed by him because it is an admitted case of the informant that land in question has already been registered in the name of his wife and same was done on the basis of money received from him as told by the land owner D.W. 1 in his categorical statement during the course of his examination. The money receipt has also been proved as Ext. A, A/1, A/2 and A/3.

21. In view of the aforesaid evidences including oral and documentary, it is well founded that the learned appellate court below has rightly appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and the judgment of conviction and order of sentences as passed by the learned trial court has rightly been set aside.

22. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion of the testimonies of the witness and also the documentary evidences, comes to a concrete finding that the learned appellate court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2019 and there is no legal point to interfere in this Criminal Revision.

23. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

A.Mohanty