ORDER :

1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2014 passed in Cr. Appeal No.45 of 2010, by which conviction of the petitioner for the offences under section 419, 465, 467 and 468 IPC has been confirmed by the appellate court however sentence awarded to him has been reduced from three years to one year.

2. Two-fold submissions have been made on behalf of the accused-petitioner; (i) once charge under section 120-B IPC has failed without recording a finding that there is independent evidence to convict the accused for the offence as alleged by the prosecution, conviction of the petitioner for the substantive offence is unsustainable, and (ii) the mandatory provision under section 360 Cr.P.C has been given a go-by.

3. On an allegation that the cheque for Rs.10,000/- drawn in his name which was sent from the LIC office was not delivered to him and on enquiry he has come to know that the said cheque has been cleared in favour of Central Cooperative Bank, Hirapur, the informant lodged a written complaint on the basis of which Dhanbad P.S.Case No.600 of 1996 was registered for the offence under sections 419/420/465/467/468/120-B IPC.

4. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner, however, investigation against the co-accused-Sanchayan Chatterjee was kept pending.

5. During the trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and copies of LIC Premium Receipt, Duplicate LIC Policy, etc. were tendered in evidence.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the evidence laid before him came to a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under section 419/465/467/468/120-B IPC against the petitioner, however, charge for the offence under sections 420/120-B IPC has failed.

7. The learned Magistrate has held, thus;

"15. It is apparent from the case record that the accused Sanchayan Chatterjee opened the account in the name of Debashish Chatterjee in Central Co-operative Bank, Hirpur, Dhanbad and he was introduced by the accused Gopal Kumar Sahu in that Bank. Thereafter, the accused deposited the cheque of Rs.5000/- in that account issued by L.I.C and further withdrawn 5000/- Rs. from that account is suggests that the introducer Gopal Kumar Sao knew the accused Sanchayan Chatterjee and on his introduction the Bank opened his account in the name of Debashish Chatterjee which reflects that there was a conspiracy between both the accused persons for the fraudulent transactions"

8. The learned Magistrate has inflicted the following punishments on the petitioner:

"The accused namely Gopal Kumar Sao is hereby convicted u/ss-419/465/467/468/120-B of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years u/s-419/120 of I.P.C with fine of Rs.500/- and in default S.I. for 15 days, and u/s 465/120-B of I.P.C. R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- only and in default S.I. 15 days, u/ss- 467/120-B of I.P.C R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500=00 and in default S.I. for 15 days, u/ss- 468/120-B of I.P.C R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default S.I. for 15 days. All the sentences however, shall run concurrently. The period undergone in jail custody ordered to be set-off. O/c to provide free copy of this judgment to ld defence Lawyer."

9. In Cr. Appeal No.45 of 2010, which was filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction, the appellate court has held that the accused-appellant was rightly convicted for the offence under section 419, 465, 467 and 468 IPC.

10. By now it is well-settled that if no finding is returned on a specific charge framed against an accused it has to be understood in law that the said charge has failed [refer, "Lokendra Singh vs. State of M.P."-1999 SCC (Cri.) 371]. The learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 419, 465, 467, 468 r/w 120-B IPC, however, the appellate court has found conviction of the petitioner by the trial court valid only for the offence under