Arvind Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Ram Autar Singh, J.—These criminal revisions have been directed against the common judgment and order dated 10.7.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2000 Izharul Hasan v. State of U.P. and Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2000 Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. by which both appeals have been dismissed with the direction to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court on the revisionists.

The brief facts arising out of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged by complainant Dinesh Kumar Tiwari on 15.9.1987 at 15.10 P.M. at P.S. Sigra of District Varanasi with this allegation that an advertisement was got published by Sachiv, General Manager Jan Kalyan Sansthan, Lallapur, Varanasi, U.P. in Dainik Jagran dated 11.8.1987 inviting applications alongwith bank drafts of Rs. 20/ - each for the posts of Office Superintendents and Supervisors, for which complainant Dinesh Kumar Tiwari also deposited his application and bank draft of Rs. 20/ - in the said office situated at C-15/79 Lallapur, Varanasi, which was entered at serial No. 907 in the register. The complainant at the time of depositing his application suspected some foul play from conversation going on between the employees of the office, at which some applicants requested the employees to return their applications and bank drafts, which gave rise to an altercation between them and in the meantime one of the employees took him to lonely place and agreed to return his application with this assurance that he would not inform the police in this regard. All the applicants present in the office then asked the employees to disclose their names, at which one of them tried to flee from the office but he was caught by the applicants and on being asked he disclosed his name as Arvind Kumar Singh resident of Gopalpur, P.S. Meh Nagar, District Azamgarh and confessed to his guilt that they after receiving all the bank drafts would encash them and would leave the place. The complainant along with all applicants then came to know of the cheating being committed by the persons including accused Arvind Kumar Singh, who claimed himself to be the Chairman of the said institution.

A case was registered under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. against the revisionist Arvind Kumar Singh and other employees of Jan Kalyan Sansthan, Lallapur on the basis of written report of complainant Dinesh Kumar Tiwari at P.S. Sigra and investigated by the police. The investigating officer then checked the said office on 16.9.1987 at 4.00 P.M., arrested accused Arvind Kumar Singh and Izharul Hasan, who also claimed himself to be the Secretary of the said institution. The police then conducted search and recovered application register, meeting register, bank drafts, postal orders, seals of institution, eight receipt books, application forms, envelopes containing bank drafts, sign board of institution displayed on the front of office and then sealed the office as well as prepared recovery memo. The police on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the revisionists under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C.

The charges u/s 420 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. were framed against the revisionists on 28.6.1990, who did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the charge prosecution examined P.W.1 Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, P.W. 2 Lolarak Nath Tiwari, P.W.3 Mohd. Rozan Ansari, P.W.4 Rama Shankar Singh and P.W.5 Rajan Prasad Pandey. The statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the prosecution evidence and claimed to be falsely implicated due to enmity but no evidence in their defence was adduced.

The learned trial court found both the revisionists guilty u/s 420 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to under go simple imprisonment for one year. The revisionists then preferred Criminal Appeals No. 10 of 2000 and 15 of 2000 against above judgment and order. The learned appellate court neither found any illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the trial court nor the same was found to be perverse, consequently both appeals were dismissed but the sentence imposed by the trial court was reduced to six months R.I. each and in addition to above sentence each of the appellants was directed to pay Rs. 500/ - as fine and in default they were further directed to under go additional R.I. for two months. The revisionists then preferred these revisions against the judgments passed by the courts below.

The learned Counsel for the revisionists has contended that the appellate court has recorded wrong finding that P.W.4 Rama Shankar Singh, Registrar of the said institution stated that the revisionist Arvind Kumar Singh was Chairman of the registered society, while P.W.4 Rama Shankar Singh never made such statement. This contention raised on behalf of the revisionists is found to be incorrect. A perusal of statement of P.W.4 Rama Shankar Singh goes to show that P.W.4 Rama Shankar Singh has nowhere termed revisionist Arvind Kumar Singh to be Chairman of the said institution and Izharul Hasan to be its Secretary.

It is further contented that the appellate court has wrongly relied on the statements of P.W.1 Dinesh Kumar Tiwari and P.W.2 Lolarak Nath Tiwari to this effect that the revisionist Arvind Kumar Singh was Chairman and Izharul Hasan was Secretary of the registered society, while the statements of these witnesses have neither been found reliable nor admissible in evidence. This contention of learned Counsel cannot be accepted because nothing has been shown as to why the statements of these witnesses cannot be said to be reliable. The learned trial court has categorically appreciated the statements of these witnesses, who have stated that the revisionist Arvind Kumar Singh tried to flee from his office when a crowd of applicants, who had gone to deposit their applications asked to return their applications and bank drafts and all of them then surrounded him, who disclosed his name before them. Nothing has been found on record that these witnesses knew this accused before this occurrence and thus the question of his false implication due to alleged enmity could not arise. The details of so called enmity has not been given in the statements of revisionists u/s 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence regarding alleged enmity has been adduced in defence. P.W.2 Lolarak Nath Tiwari has also corroborated the prosecution case and categorically stated that the investigating officer has recovered the above mentioned articles from the office of revisionists. The learned appellate court also observed that nothing has been found on record to discard the testimony of these witnesses. In view of concurrent findings of both the courts below, this Court has no option except to accept the above findings of the learned courts below.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist has also contended that the prosecution has not produced the list of office bearers of the institution and only the list of office bears of the society has been filed. This contention raised on behalf of the revisionist is found worthless in view of concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below in this regard that the list of office bearers of the society has been recovered by the police from the disputed office.

It has been vehemently contended that the revisionist was neither Chairman nor had any concern with the said society, namely, "Jan Kalyan Sansthan", Lallapur, Varanasi and he has pleaded before the trial court in this regard, but the courts below have arbitrarily held that he was Chairman of the society. This contention is inconsistent with the findings recorded by the courts below, because the prosecution has been able to establish on the basis of evidence that the revisionist Arvind Kumar Singh was Chairman of the society "Jan Kalyan Sansthan", Lallapur, Varanasi at the relevant time and he along with co-revisionist induced unemployed educated candidates to move applications for appointment along with required bank drafts and they deposited their applications alongwith the bank drafts in his office because the revisionists intended to get these bank drafts encashed and thereafter flee from the said office after closing the same.

The learned courts below categorically recorded findings to this effect that on the basis of the evidence on record it was proved that the registers, bank drafts, fake seals and other fake materials were recovered by the police from the office of the revisionists. The recovered articles were produced during the statements of the witnesses and exhibited in trial court. Under these circumstances this contention cannot be accepted that the prosecution did not produce alleged recovered bank drafts and forms which were sealed on the spot. Nothing has been found on record to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses nor any enmity has been proved between the complaint and the revisionists. Consequently the courts below have not committed any illegality or factual error in relying on the testimony of the witnesses.

This revisional court cannot act as if it is hearing an appeal. No doubt this Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, but it cannot record different findings on the basis of same evidence on record and substitute the findings recorded by the courts below. No discrepancy or illegality in the conduct of trial vitiating the same has been pointed out on behalf of the revisionists. No scope is found for using revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below. On the basis of re-appreciation of evidence there is no possibility to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the courts below and thus there is no scope whatsoever to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below.

The learned courts below have categorically recorded a finding to this effect that there is evidence on record that the revisionists have made an attempt to cheat the persons, who have deposited their applications alongwith bank drafts or postal orders and thus there is material on record, on the basis of which the courts below have found these revisionists guilty of the offences u/s 420 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. The complicity of the revisionist Izharul Hasan has been established on the basis of evidence. No doubt P.W.4 Rama Shankar Singh has made his statement to this effect that the society has been registered in accordance with law and rules, but on the basis of the evidence on record the intention of the revisionists being office bearers of the society has been found dishonest and malafide. The direct and circumstantial evidence available on record are sufficient to establish that the revisionists are involved in attempting to commit cheating the witnesses and unemployed educated candidates.

Various registers relating to the offence committed by the revisionists and bank drafts have been recovered by the police from the office of the institution and the same have been exhibited during trial. All the documentary evidence have been found to be proved in accordance with law. The report No. 352 Doc-88 dated 25.8.1988 of Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P., Mahanagar, Lucknow is found on record of trial court, which is evident to show that the handwriting and signatures of revisionists have been found on the documents recovered from their office, on the basis of comparison made by the experts.

It would not be out of place to mention at this stage that this Court hearing these revisions cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record and come to its own conclusion on the same evidence when the same has already been appreciated by the courts below, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of this Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. The findings recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the revisionists that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse or illegal.

In view of the foregoing discussions, these revisions lack merits and are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, these revisions are dismissed.

Let copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for compliance forthwith.