JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. The learned trial court, vide Judgment dated 09.04.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga in General Register No. 167/1987 and Trial Register No. 300/2008 (arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 61/1987), had convicted the petitioners under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 406 of IPC; Simple Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 120(B) of IPC and all the sentenced were directed to run concurrently.

4. The petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 09/2008 and Criminal Appeal No.10/2008 respectively against the Judgment of the learned trial court and the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, vide Judgment dated 08.09.2008, dismissed the criminal appeals and upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but modified the sentences to Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the learned appellate court set aside the conviction of the petitioners under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Arguments of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Bahura Sahu, the Petitioner No. 3 has expired and his name has been deleted from the cause title of the criminal revision by virtue of the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by this Court. Accordingly, the present criminal revision application survives only so far as Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been made accused and have been convicted by alleging that they were the partners of the firm namely, Kisan Sewa Kendra. He further submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioners, but the learned trial court convicted the petitioners on the basis of Exhibit-4 in which one Satya Prakash Verma (co-accused) had written a letter mentioning the names of three petitioners as his partners in the firm namely, Kisan Sewa. The main accused namely, Satya Prakash Verma absconded and he did not face the trial.

Learned counsel submitted that there is no material evidence on record showing the complicity of the present Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and accordingly, the conviction of these two petitioners calls for interference under revisional jurisdiction.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a stand was taken by the learned P.P. before the learned court below that these petitioners could be the sleeping partners of the partnership firm. In this context, the learned counsel referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1989) 4 SCC 630 [Sham Sunder and Others -vs- State of Haryana], Para- 8 and 9 to submit that even if it is assumed that the petitioners were the sleeping partners, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioners. He also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No. 923/2008 decided on 06.05.2008 in the case of Latu Mahto vs. State of Bihar reported in (2008) 8 SCC 395 to submit that importance of the questions put to the accused during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel submitted that no question was put to the petitioners as to whether the petitioners were partn