Jharkhand High Court
Ram Sakal Son Of Late Munga Ram Resident ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ......Opposite ... on 11 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1160 of 2016
Ram Sakal son of Late Munga Ram resident of
village Barigawan, PO Bare, PS Bhabhua,
District Kaimur (Bhabhua), Bihar ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opposite party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P.
.....
Order No.05/ Dated:11.06.2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission
of this Criminal Revision.
2. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the
order/Judgment dated 03.08.2016 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 90 of 2015 dismissing
the appeal and affirming the conviction and order of sentence dated
12.05.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad
in G.R. Case No. 1558 of 2002, Tr. No. 43 of 2015 arising out of
Dhanbad (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 310 of 2002, whereby the petitioner
has been found guilty for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 &
471 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to undergo R.I.
for two years six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under
Sections 420, 467 & 468 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of
payment of fine further S.I. for six months and also to undergo R.I.
for one year under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, all the
sentences have run concurrently.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 26.06.2002, the
petitioner appeared before the Senior D.P.O., Eastern Railway,
Dhanbad and present an appointment letter being no. E/1640/ER,
dated 03.06.2002 of Chief Personnal Officer, Kolkata, for the post of
4th grade employee. The appointment letter dated 03.06.2002 was
purported to have been issued by Sr. D.M.O. (G)/Eastern Railway,
Kolkata. It has further been alleged in the first informant report that
he has also produced medical memo no. 485899, dated 27.03.2002.
Later on, during enquiry by A.P.O., Sr. D.P.O. and SI of RPF, it was
found that the said appointment letter was forged one. On
interrogation, the accused disclosed that it was made available to him
by Kishori Lal on payment of Rs. 35,000/- by the accused. After
occurrence informant presented a written application to Dhanbad P.S.
and on that basis Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 310 of 2002 dated
02.07.2002, under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code was registered against the petitioner and co-accused Kishori
Lal. Charges was framed against the present petitioner for the
offences under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code to which he denied and claimed for trial and he has been
convicted for the offense under aforesaid Sections 420, 467, 468 &
471 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been
convicted due to reason for getting job as 4th grade employee in the
Railway. The petitioner has submitted a forged appointment letter
purportedly issued from Sr. D.M.O. (G) Eastern Railway Calcutta
and before accepting the joining the document was found to be
forged and fabricated, therefore, no job was provided to the
petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner ought to be prosecuted for the
attempt for aforesaid offences, however he was prosecuted for the
aforesaid offences. Petitioner has remained about six months custody
during course of trial/appeal and during pendency of this revision. In
the above mentioned circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner
has confined himself to the quantum of sentence only.
5. Considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner which
appears to be at the stage of attempt because just after submitting his
document showing his appointment by competent authority the
forgery and cheating was detected and petitioner was prosecuted. The
petitioner has remained in custody for six months during trial of the
case which appears to be sufficient punishment in the instant case.
6. Accordingly, this Revision is dismissed on merits with modification
in sentence to the extent already undergone by the petitioner during
course of investigation and trial.
7. Let the copy of this Judgment along with trial court record be sent to
the court below for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Rajnish/
