Ram Chandra Dhan Rai vs State Of Jharkhand

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 29.09.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2012 whereby the learned appellate court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 30.03.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No.2032 of 1992/Tr. No. 1150 of 2012 whereby the learned trial court has found the petitioner guilty for offence committed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to go R.I for 3 years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo S.I. for 3 months.

The prosecution case is that on 29.05.1992 the informant had gone to Patna alongwith his colleagues. They met with one of his colleagues, constable no.600 namely, Bir Bahadur Singh. He disclosed that some years ago, while he was posted at Bhuli Police Station, he met one agent of L.I.C namely, Ram Chandra Dhan Rai at Dhanbad who is presently in G.R.P. Police Station. It has been alleged that the above three persons came at G.R.P. Police Station Patna and found that the said person of L.I.C was there who about 1 ½ years ago had taken Rs.3,500/- for depositing the same in L.I.C. as Premium and he had also taken Rs.3,000/- from Nawal Kishore Rai to deposit in L.I.C. as premium. He had also taken Rs.1,500/- from one Havildar namely, Basanti Singh and also from other several constables to deposit on the pretext of L.I.C premium. When the above persons went for enquiry from the concerned Manager of L.I.C., then it was disclosed that the accused, who was earlier working as an agent in L.I.C., is absconding by taking some premium amounts from different customers and when the Manager perused their names, it was found that in the list of depositors their names have not been mentioned and the said agent had also not deposited the amount of premium.

On the basis of written report, formal FIR was lodged on 31.05.1992 being Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No.347 of 1992 for the offence committed under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet on 30.06.1992 and after submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and sent up for trial. On the basis of evidences placed before him, the learned trial court found the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 420 and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order of learned trial court before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. The learned appellate court concurred with the finding and did not interfere with the order of the learned trial court either for the conviction or for the sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no corroboration with the prosecution witnesses and learned trial court has erred in law in concluding that all the witnesses have corroborated each other which is actually not correct. He further submitted that the informant-P.W.2 in para-3 of his cross-examination has clearly stated that neither he nor any of the other witnesses have paid money to the petitioner in anybody's presence. He further submitted that no single chit of paper (insurance policy or its receipt) has been produced before the learned trial court; even the FIR has been lodged after a delay 1 and 1/2 years which strongly creates suspicion on the truthfulness of the event.

Per-contra the learned APP has supported the order of the learned courts below and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order and no interference is required.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the documents available on record and keeping in mind the limitation of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned Appellate court, however, it has been brought on record that the petitioner has remained in custody for 5 months approximately. It is also stated that it is the first offence of the petitioner and he has never misused the privilege of bail given by the learned courts below. It is a fit case where Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act should be applied as it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner back to the custody. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to be released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act after entering into a bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties with a like amount each for keeping peace and good behavior for a period of two years, failing which he will serve rest sentence as passed against him by the learned trial court.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant revision application is disposed of.

Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.