JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Binod Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner alongwith Ms. Satakshi, Amicus.

2. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was upheld.

4. The criminal appeal was preferred against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.03.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in G.R. Case No. 274 of 1997/T.R. No. 594/2013 (arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 97/1997 dated 17.07.1997) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was held guilty and convicted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for committing the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for committing the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and the sentences were directed run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set-aside, inasmuch as, there is no evidence on record that it was the petitioner who had manipulated the cheques involved in the present case. He has submitted that there are three cheques amounting to Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively involved in the case and so far as the allegation with regard to the cheque amounting to Rs. 60,000/- is concerned, it has been alleged against the petitioner that he had interpolated the cheque by inserting ‘ty’ after six and by inserting one zero after Rs. 6,000/- and the cheque was encashed at the bank. He has further submitted that there is no evidence that the interpolation had taken place at the end of the petitioner. He also has submitted that so far as other two cheques i.e. of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- are concerned, there has been allegation of interpolation in those cheques also, but the counter-foils of the cheques also indicated that the cheques were issued for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- each and accordingly, there could have been no interpolation in the cheques by the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that it has been recorded by the learned trial court that it was the banker who was cheated, but it is not clear as to how the banker has been cheated, as the amount did not belong to the bank, rather the amount belonged to the government. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no element of entrustment and there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. The learned counsel also has submitted that the investigating officer of the case has not been examined which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that there has been no wrongful loss to the banker and accordingly, no criminal case of forgery, cheating or criminal breach of trust is made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no expert opinion on record to show that the interpolation which was made in the cheque was under the handwriting of the present petitioner and therefore, the finding of the learned courts below that the petitioner had interpolated the cheque is itself perverse and is fit to be set-aside.

6. The learned counsel submitted that there has been unreasonable and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and from perusal of the written report i.e. the FIR, it appears that the same is not a Complain