Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
M/s. Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Vs.
Sri Tapas Daripa - Opposite party
Cr. M.P. No. 1132 of 2018
Decided On : 08-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Adv.
For the Opposite party : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 406, 34 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 378 – Condo nation of delay - Evidence of all complainant’s - Learned trial court discussed evidence of all the complainant’s witnesses and thereafter came to the following findings witnesses had primarily deposed against accused person that on his verbal assurance advance money of was tendered to except this fact of verbal assurance Company had nothing else transpired with present accused person documents exhibited by the complainant i.e., agreement, money receipts and acknowledgement of money, bear signature no document on record are there which bears the signature or name of the accused opposite party herein complainant failed to establish the ingredient of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused - It also failed to show any criminal breach of trust as there was no entrustment of property, an essential ingredient of Section 406 I.P.C – Held, Based on these findings, the accused was acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence of the complainant’s witnesses are consistent on point that it was the accused/opposite party herein, who had introduced with whom these transactions were made and accused with other person with a common intention cheated the Company - Present accused had also returned an amount of as a condition of bail - Learned trial Court has therefore -appreciated the evidence on record which renders the findings susceptible to challenge before appellate court - Therefore, special leave to appeal may be granted - Learned counsel for the private opposite party has opposed the prayer and defended the impugned findings. He submits that in the material evidence adduced by the complainant taken together does not constitute any offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating as against accused person - When there was no transaction in any form with the accused/opposite party, there was no element of dishonest intention to cheat on the part of the present opposite party - There was no entrustment of property either in of he accused/opposite party - At best allegation and the statements could be directed against other person - In such circumstances, learned trial Court had no other option than to acquit opposite party, as complainant failed to bring on record any incriminating material to nail his guilt - Court have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the impugned judgment and also the discussions on the relevant material evidence on record made by learned trial court – Court do not find that the petitioner has made good grounds to question the findings to seek special leave to appeal to assail the impugned judgment before appellant court -
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for condonation of delay of 9 days in preferring the instant petition made through I.A. No. 3459 of 2018.
Upon consideration of the submissions made and the grounds urged, delay is condoned. Consequently, the instant I.A. stands disposed of.
Cr. M.P. No. 1132 of 2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the prayer seeking special leave to appeal in terms of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 23rd January, 2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in C/I Case No. 31 of 2011/T.R. No. 74 of 2018, whereunder the sole accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Complainant alleged that the Company was in need of non-forest land for compensatory forestation and purchased an area of 40 acres in plot no. 258, Khata no. 155. But after registration, mutation could not be done. One Vijay Burman approached the Company to provide all the relevant papers relating to ownership of the said land and no objection certificate of the forest department and to ensure mutation in favour of the complainant-company, for which he demanded Rs.3,30,000/-, out of which 2 Lakhs was paid in advance. It is alleged that on verbal assurance of accused Tapas Daripa, opposite party herein, who was employed under the sister company of the complainant, the amount was tendered to Vijay Burman, but Vijay Burman neither provided the aforesaid papers nor ensured the mutation of land and also did not refund the amount. Both the persons therefore cheated the Company with common intention.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other accused Vijay Burman was declared absconder and this case was tried for the instant offences against the opposite party.
4. Upon solemn inquiry and examination of the complainant, accused was summoned. On his appearance, charges were explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. During the course of trial, complainant examined three witnesses and adduced the following documents:
I. C.W.1 Rajesh Ram Ravi
II. C.W.2 Jagan Kumar Oraon
III. C.W.3 Siharan Das
I. Authorization letter (Ext.1)
II. Written application of Vijay Burman (Ext.2)
III. Acknowledgement receipt of Vijay Burman (Ext.3)
IV. Pleader demand notice (Ext.4)
V. Postal receipt (Ext.4/1)
VI. Postal receipt (Ext. 4/2)
VII. Acknowledgement receipt (Ext.4/3)
VIII. Reminder Notice (Ext.5)
IX. Registered postal receipt of reminder (Ext.5/1)
X. Registered postal receipt of reminder (Ext.5/2)
XI. A/D of reminder notice (Ext.5/3)
6. After closure of the evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C on 18th January, 2018 where he claimed himself to be innocent and denied all the incriminating materials brought against him.
7. Learned trial court discussed the evidence of all the complainant’s witnesses and thereafter came to the following findings (i) all the witnesses had primarily deposed against the accused person that on his verbal assurance advance money of Rs.2 Lakhs was tendered to Vijay Burman, (ii) except this fact of verbal assurance, the Company had nothing else transpired with the present accused person, (iii) all the documents exhibited by the complainant i.e., agreement, money receipts and acknowledgement of money, bear the signature of Vijay Burman, (iv) no document on record are there which bears the signature or name of the accused opposite party herein. (v) complainant failed to establish the ingredient of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. It also failed to show any criminal breach of trust as there was no entrustment of property, an essential ingredient of Section 406 I.P.C.
8. Based on these findings, the accused was acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence of the complainant’s witnesses are consistent on the point that it was the accuse
