Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Sekhar Saw @ Chandra Shekhar Rao ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2024
Author: Subhash Chand
Bench: Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Cr. Revision No.43 of 2023
Chandra Sekhar Saw @ Chandra Shekhar Rao @ Chandra Shekhar Sao,
aged about 56 years, Son of Late Pratap Chandra Saw @ Pratap Chandra
Rao, Resident of Dahmunda, J.L. No.8, Satma, PO & PS Satma, District
West Midnapur, West Bengal ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Lalit Lohar, S/o Sufal Lohar, R/o Vill: Jhaliamara, PS Sonua, District
Singhbhum (West), Chaibasa, Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Parties
With
Cr. Revision No.47 of 2023
Nand Kishore Mishra, aged about 49 year, Son of Shri Ram Krishna
Mishra, Resident of Holding No. E-177, A-Block, Basti Area, PO & PS
Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singbhum, Jharkhand
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Lalit Lohar, S/o Sufal Lohar, R/o Vill: Jhaliamara, PS Sonua, District
Singhbhum (West), Chaibasa, Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Parties
(Heard on 21.12.2023)
---------
PRESENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, APP
For the OP No.2/Informant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
--------
JUDGMENT
CAV On 21st December 2023 Pronounced on 19th January 2024
Per, Subhash Chand, J.
This criminal revision has been directed against the order
dated 21.11.2022 passed in MCA No. 393 of 2022 arising out of Sonua PS
Case No. 52/2019 (G.R. Case No.140/2022) passed by learned SDJM
(Porahat), West Singbhum, Chaibasa whereby the learned court has
rejected the discharge application of the petitioner under section 239 of
Cr.PC.
2. This criminal revision is on behalf of petitioner Nand Kishore
Mishra against the order dated 21.11.2022 passed in MCA No. 377 of
2022 arising out of Sonua PS Case No. 52/2019 (G.R. Case No.140/2022)
passed by learned SDJM (Porahat), West Singbhum, Chaibasa whereby the
learned court has rejected the discharge application of the petitioner under
section 239 of Cr.PC.
3. Both these criminal revision have been directed against the
same impugned judgment in same Sonua PS Case No. 52 of 2019 (G.R.
Case No.140/2022) whereby the discharge application of both the
petitioners have been rejected therefore both these criminal revisions are
being disposed of by the common order.
4. The brief facts leading to these criminal revisions are that
informant Lalit Lohar had given the written information on 23.12.2019
with the police station concerned with these allegations that in between the
year 2010 to 2013 Dukhu Murmu and Nand Kishore Mishra, M.D. of
Satya Sai Building Project Pvt. Ltd., Chandra Shekhar Sao, Director of
Satya Sai Building Project Pvt. Ltd., Shankar Lal and Dhunu Manjhi,
Director of the company, all had allured the gentle villagers to double their
money/paisa in three years if the same was invested in their company. The
people of the Bari, Boykeda, Golmunda, Porahat panchayat more than
hundred people invested their lacs of money in the company in Satya Sai
Building Project Pvt. Ltd. and Sankalp Reality Company. After lapse of
the said term as assured on demand of the payment of the double money
invested by the villager, it was told by Dukhu Murmu that all the papers
are in possession of Chandra Shekhar Rao, Dhunu Manjhi, Nand Kishore
Mishra and Shankar Lal who are the office bearer of Satya Sai Building
Project Pvt. Ltd. and Sankalp Reality Company as well. On making
demand no money was refunded. The office of the company has also been
closed. This FIR was lodged by Lalit Lohar against Dukhu Murmu, Nand
Kishore Mishra, Chandra Shekhar Sao, Shankar Lal, Dhunu Manjhi
alongwith the application of the villagers which was signed and thumb
impressed by the villager who had invested their money was also annexed.
On this written information, the case crime no.52 of 2019 was registered
with PS Sonua District Chaibasa under section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Prize Chits and
Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act), 1978 against Nand Kishore
Mishra, Chandra Shekhar Sao, Shankar Lal and Dhunu Manjhi.
5. The IO conducted the investigation and during investigation in
para-13 of the case diary recorded the restatement of Lalit Lohar in which
he reiterated all the allegations which he had made earlier in the written
information. In para-19 of the case diary statement of Guruwa Manjhi
also corroborating the prosecution story stated that in the year 2010 in
their village Dukhu Murmu who was agent of Satya Sai Building Project
Pvt. Ltd. and Sankalp Reality Company had come alongwith his
companions to their village Jhaliamara who had introduced his
companions to the villagers Nand Kishore Mishra as the M.D. of Satya Sai
Building Project Pvt. Ltd., Chandra Shekhar Sao, Director of Satya Sai
Building Project Pvt. Ltd., Dhunu Manjhi, Director of Satya Sai Building
Project Pvt. Ltd. and Sankalp Reality Company and Shankar Lal Director
of the said company. He and other persons of the village in between 2010
to 2013 deposited the money as allured by them that the same will be
double in three years and it was told to him and other villagers that receipt
and bond paper of the company shall remain deposited in the office of
company. As such he and the other persons of the village have been duped
by them. Same kind of statement is given by Suraj Manjhi in para no.20,
Mahati Manjhi in para no.21, Fagu Lohar in para no.24, Dharmu Lohar in
para no.25 in regard to the amount being deposited by them on the
allurement made by the accused persons that the same shall be double in
three years and the amount which was duped by them was also stated by
these witnesses separately. The confessional statement of Dukhu Murmu
was recorded in para no.35 of the case diary in which he stated that on
behalf of the company he was deputed to make collection in the Sonua
area in village Boykeda, Jhaliamara, Arjunpur, Porahat, Panchayat
Golmunda and from the two hundred villagers crores of rupees was
recovered by him which was deposited to the MD of Satya Sai Building
Project Pvt. Ltd. rasid of which was with him. When the same money
was demanded he told to the villagers that in Mauza Kokada Thana No.
1282, Halka No. 111, Block Potaka, District East Singhbhum of which
Khatiyan No. 236, Plot No. 526, 52/1539 had been purchased by the
company and after selling the land the money of the villagers shall be
refunded. During period 2011 to 2013 he was working as an agent of Satya
Sai Building Project Pvt. Ltd. and he realized 50 Lacs rupees during that
period.
6. In para-49 statement of witnesses Ravi Bodra, Gure Diggi,
Sukhmati Banra, Smt. Champa Kunkal, Lakhan Banra, Pelong Bankira
were recorded. In para-55 statement of witnesses Sukda Baskey, Baset
Hansda, Lal Mohan Manjhi, Nuna Besra, Sukhmaro Hansda, Chumi
Baskey and Dumpi Murmu and Malho Soren were also recorded. All these
were the aggrieved persons who had deposited their money and on the
allurement being made them that the same shall be double as such all these
witnesses were duped by the accused persons who were the office bearer
of said company.
7. Learned counsel for both the petitioners have submitted that in
this case prior to the written information dated 23.12.2019 which was
given by Lalit Lohar two more written information were given one was
given on 21.12.2019 on behalf of the several villagers in which the
allegations are made that Dukhu Murmu alongwtih five to six persons had
come to the village and had stated that they were the officers of Sankalp
Reality Company and they had duped to the villagers on the ground that
the money deposited by them would be double in three years. Thereafter
on behalf of 87 persons of the village the written information was given
and this application was also signed by Lalit Lohar as well. In this
application it was stated that in the year 2010 Dukhu Murmu had come to
the village and had stated that if one thousand rupee per person of the
village is deposited in Satya Sai Building Project Pvt. Ltd. and Sankalp
Reality Company same will be double. The money which was deposited
by the villagers on the allurement made by Dukhu Murmu same had not
been refunded after the lapse of the term as assured. The contents of all the
three written information are different. The occurrence is told of the year
2010 when Dukhu Murmu who come to the village who had told himself
that the money was to be deposited in Sankalp Reality Company. Satya Sai
Building Project Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in the year 2011. The
petitioner Chandra Shekhar Sao and anothers were inducted as Director of
the company subsequently Shankar Lal, Dhani Ram Tudu and Nand
Kishore had resigned on 26.03.2013. The petitioner Chandra Shekhar Sao
has no concerned whatsoever with Sankalp Reality Company. Since the
Satya Sai Building Project Pvt. Ltd. was not in existence in the year 2010
as such the allegations made against the petitioners are belite. The learned
lower court had not taken into consideration this material and rejected the
application for discharge of the petitioner. In support of the submissions
the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on following case law "T.T.
Antony v. State of kerala & Others with analogous cases" (2001) 6 SCC
181, "Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Private Limited with
analogous cases" (2012) 5 SCC 661, "Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel
v. State of Gujarat & another" (2019) 16 SCC 547, "Ghulam Hassan
Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & others" (2022) 12 SCC 657 and
"Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar" (2022) 9 SCC 577.
8. The same argument was adopted on behalf of the petitioner
Nand Kishore Mishra and contended to set aside the impugned order.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State in both the criminal revision petitions and perused the
material on record. It is the settled law that while framing the charge the
court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the FIR and the
evidence collected by the IO, if from the same there are sufficient ground
to proceed with the trial the court should decline to allow the discharge
application. It is also the settled law that while framing the charge the
court cannot appreciate the evidence, the marshaling of evidence, appraisal
of evidence and conducting mini trial are not permissible while framing
charge. The defense case or defense document can also not be taken into
consideration at the time of disposing the discharge application unless and
until the defense case absolutely oust rules the prosecution story.
10. Herein it would be pertinent to give the following legal
propositions of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10.1 In "Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Limited v. Sanjay
Choudhary and others" (2008) 10 SCC 681, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held at para-11, which reads as under:
"11. Sections 227, 239 and 245 deals with discharge from
criminal charge. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy it was
noted that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to
apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground
for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. The
court has to see while considering the question of framing the
charge as to whether the material brought on record could
reasonably connect the accused with the trial. Nothing more is
required to be inquired into."
10.2 In "Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others"
(2008) 14 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-38, which reads
as under:
"38. In my view, there is no scope for the accused to produce any
evidence in support of the submission made on behalf at the stage of
framing charge only such material as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC
can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage.
However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 CrPC the
court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the
accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be
maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislation
in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have to be worded
as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case by the larger Bench therein to
which the very same question had been referred."
10.3 In "Palwinder Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others" (2008)
14 SCC 504, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-13, which reads as
under:
"13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in
passing the impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the
realm of appreciation of the evidence at the stage of framing
charge itself. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge
while exercising the power under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is limited. Charge can be framed on the
basis of strong suspicion. The Marshalling and appreciation of
the evidence is not in domain of the Court at the point of time.
This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568."
10.4 In "Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mukesh
Pravinchandra Shroff and others" (2009) 16 SCC 429, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held at para-2, which reads as under:
"2. By the impugned order, the Special Court has discharged the
accused Raghunath Lekhraj Wadhwa, Jitendra Ratilal Shroff
and Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff from Special Case No. 4 of
1997. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would
appear that the Special Court has virtually passed an order of
acquittal in garb of the order of discharge. It is well settled that
at the stage of framing of charge, what is required to be seen is
as to whether there are sufficient ground to proceed against the
accused. In our view, the Special Court was not justified in
discharging the aforesaid accused persons."
11. From the allegations made in the FIR and also the statement of
the witnesses recorded by the IO during the investigation and also the
documentary evidence collected by the IO during investigation there are
sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners from which the prima
facie case is made out against both the petitioners for the offence alleged.
12. So far as the case law upon which the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied his submission same are not applicable in the given facts
of the prosecution case and the evidence collected by the IO.
13. In view of the above the impugned order passed by the
learned court below whereby the discharge application of the petitioners
have been rejected needs no interference and both these criminal revision
deserves to be dismissed.
14. Both the criminal revision petition are hereby dismissed and
the impugned order passed by the learned court below is affirmed.
15. Let the copy of the judgment be communicated to the
concerned court alongwith the record.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 19 .01.2024
AFR
RKM
