Jharkhand High Court
Shushant Kumar Patnaik @ Susant Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 3 May, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 487 of 2019
Shushant Kumar Patnaik @ Susant Kumar Pattanaik, aged about 40 years, S/o
H.K. Patnaik @ Hemanta Kumar Pattanaik, Resident of Village-Rajendra
Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Madhupatna, District Cuttack, Odisha
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate
---
rd
08/3 May 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated
29.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2019 whereby the appellate court has
partly allowed and partly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has
also modified the sentences passed under Sections 406 and 471 of the Indian
Penal code. The petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 406, 467,
468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of an FIR and faced Trial
under the aforesaid sections being G.R. Case No. 454/2010 (T.R. No. 89/2019).
The FIR was filed on 20.08.2010. The learned trial Court had convicted the
petitioner for offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for offence
under Section 406 of IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 05 years for offence
under Section 467 with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence; rigorous
imprisonment for 05 years for offence under Section 468 of IPC with a fine of
Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence and rigorous imprisonment for 05 years under
Section 471 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence and all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The learned trial court further accessed the loss to the tune of Rs.
13,79,514/- and accordingly directed for payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to
N.I.M.E Co-operative Store Limited as compensation under Section 353 (iii) of
Cr.P.C.
4. The appellate court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section
406 of IPC and also under Section 471 of IPC, but modified the sentence. The
sentence under Section 471 of IPC was reduced for 04 years with fine of Rs.
5,000/- and sentence under Section 406 of IPC was not interference with.
5. So far as compensation amount is concerned, the appellate court
recorded that an amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- was paid by way of bank draft to
N.I.M.E. Co-operative Store Limited in terms of the direction by this Court at
the time of grant of anticipatory bail being A.B.A. No. 4767/2010 vide order
dated 14.02.2011 and accordingly the said amount was directed to be adjusted
against the compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which was awarded by the
learned trial court and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- was directed to
be paid as compensation.
6. So far as the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 467 and 468 of
the IPC is concerned, the same was set-aside by the learned appellate court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned
judgments has submitted that the learned courts have not considered the
evidences properly and there were many other persons who were involved in
the alleged transaction but the petitioner was isolated and faced the trial before
the learned court. The learned counsel submits that there was no signature of
the petitioner on various documents which were exhibited rather the trial court
has recorded that the exhibits produced by the prosecution i.e. 9, 9/2, 9/4, 9/5
and 9/6 were in the writing of the petitioner in the store register and the other
exhibits which were counter-foils were written by other staffs of the store on
the instructions of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that
the signature of the petitioner was also not sent for verification through expert.
8. The learned counsel further submits that the appellate court while
upholding the conviction of the petitioner has not considered aforesaid aspect
of the matter properly and therefore the judgment of the appellate court
upholding the conviction under Sections 406 and 471 of the IPC calls for
interference.
9. Apart from the aforesaid on the point of sentencing, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the conviction under Section 471 of the
IPC has to be seen with Section 465 of the IPC and the maximum punishment
prescribed therein is only two years, but the appellate court though has reduced
the punishment but has still exceeded the prescribed punishment by giving the
punishment of 04 years instead of 02 years and therefore the sentence calls for
interference.
10. The learned counsel submits that so far as Section 406 of the IPC is
concerned, the punishment has not been interfered with and 03 years has been
awarded by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court.
11. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is aged about 45 years
now and has faced the trial for long years and is presently suffering from
serious ailment and therefore some sympathetic view may be taken, so far as
the sentence is concerned. He submits that such submission is being made
without prejudice to the argument of the petitioner that the impugned
judgments being perverse ,call for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has
submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts in
connection with the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 406 and 471 of
the IPC. The learned counsel submits that the documents are registers of Co-
operative Store which are public documents and counter-foils are also involved
in this case and therefore the conviction under Section 471 of the IPC is to be
seen by referring to Section 466 of IPC and not under Section 465 of IPC and
under Section 466 of IPC, the maximum punishment is 07 years. The learned
counsel further submits that the matter relates to defalcation of public money
and therefore the petitioner does not deserve any lenient view.
13. So far as the ailment of the petitioner is concerned, there is nothing on
record to support and otherwise also the ailment of the petitioner cannot be a
ground for modification of sentence.
14. The learned counsel for the State submits that so far as the remaining
compensation amount is concerned, the petitioner has not deposited the same
so far and the amount was defalcated as back as in the year 2010 and more than
13 years have passed from the date of the incident.
15. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is ready to deposit the compensation amount and he also submits that
the sentence can still be modified by this Court considering the facts and
circumstances of this case.
16. Arguments concluded.
17. Judgment is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
