ORDER :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard Mr. Saurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. This criminal revision application has been filed against judgment dated 27.08.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2013 whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Chaibasa in G.R. Case No.553 of 2010 arising out of Muffasil P.S Case No.112 of 2010 so far it relates to conviction under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The petitioner was the sole accused, who was charged for offence under Sections 323/406/420 and 452 of Indian Penal Code and upon trial, was found guilty of offence under Sections 406/420 and 323 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was acquitted for alleged offence under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned appellate court acquitted the petitioner for offence under Sections 406 and 323 of IPC but upheld his conviction under Section 420 of IPC.

6. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner :

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court convicted the petitioner by referring to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, but throughout the petitioner was the sole accused and accordingly Section 34 of Indian Penal Code could not be attracted. However, the learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the petitioner only under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the solitary point of law involved in the present case is that the basic ingredient for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not at all satisfied. It was specific case of the informant P.W.1 that a friendly loan of Rs.1,03,000/- was extended to the accused on different dates which was not returned and thereafter a Panchayati was held where the accused agreed to repay the amount in monthly installments of Rs.2,000/- but he did not act upon his promise. He submits that further specific case of informant P.W.1 was that the accused had taken one mobile and golden ring on the pretext that he was going to see a girl for marriage, but the same was also not returned. Learned counsel submits that there is no material on record to indicate that since beginning there was any ill intention or fraudulent intention of the petitioner and accordingly, the conviction under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submits that the entire dispute is of pure civil nature and this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly the appellate court’s judgment upholding the conviction under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code calls for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

9. Learned counsel has also referred to judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar and Another” reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336; “V.Y. Jose and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in (2009) 3 SCC 78; “Vesa Holdings Private Limited and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others” reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293; “Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, New Delhi” reported in (2003) 5 SCC 257; “Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party-State :

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that there are concurrent findings