Md. Kalim vs State Of Jharkhand

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

Arguments of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, although there is no element of entrustment proved from the records of this case. He submits that the matter relates to payment of award to the awardees of land acquisition and it has been alleged that the petitioner was instrumental in taking the awardees to Ranchi for the purposes of payment. Admittedly, the cheques were issued in their name and the cheque amounts were deposited in their accounts. However, it has been alleged that the withdrawn amount was taken by the accused-petitioner and entire amount was not handed over to the awardees. The learned counsel submits that even at the time of alleged handing over of cash to the awardees, admittedly they did not count the money and when went back to Simdega, they got the money counted and found that the money was less than the actual award . Further , there has been unexplained delay in filing the FIR .

The learned counsel submits that the court witness i.e., the Branch Manager of the Bank, has been examined in the present case, who has clearly deposed that the amount was paid in cash to the awardees after the amount was credited in their bank account on proper identification. The learned counsel submits that the learned courts below have not considered the evidence of the court witnesses and have failed to consider that the court witness has clearly deposed that the mode of payment of the cash amount to the awardees was through the withdrawal forms duly signed by them. The learned counsel submits that as there is no entrustment, there is no question of criminal breach of trust for constituting offence under Section 406 of IPC.

The learned counsel further submits that as the amount was withdrawn by the awardees themselves under their signatures on the withdrawal forms, there is no occasion of any loss caused to the awardees and the basic ingredients for offence under Section 420 of IPC is also missing.

Arguments of the opposite party-State

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing the materials on record, which do not call for any interference. He submits that the victims have fully supported the prosecution case. However, during the course of argument, he does not dispute the fact that the Branch Manager of the Bank had deposed before the learned court below as court witness and he had also proved the entire documents relating to opening of bank account, deposit of the cheques as well as the withdrawal of the amount by the awardees on the basis of the withdrawal slips signed by them.

Arguments are concluded.

Post this case on 24.01.2022 for judgment.