JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State of Jharkhand.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 08.08.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.10/1999 whereby and whereunder the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner.

4. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 08.02.1999 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. No.278/1990, T.R. No.291/1999, had convicted the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months and Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, although there is no element of entrustment proved from the records of this case. He submitted that the matter relates to payment of award to the awardees of land acquisition and it has been alleged that the petitioner was instrumental in taking the awardees to Ranchi for the purposes of payment. Admittedly, the cheques were issued in the names of the awardees and the cheque amounts were deposited in their accounts. However, it has been alleged that the withdrawn amount was taken by the accused-petitioner and thereafter, entire amount was not handed over to the awardees. The learned counsel submitted that even at the time of the alleged handing over of the cash to the awardees, admittedly, they did not count the money and when went back to Simdega, they got the money counted and found that the money was less than the actual award amount. He also submitted that there has been unexplained delay in filing the F.I.R.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the court witness i.e. the Branch Manager of the Bank has been examined in the present case who has clearly deposed that the amount was paid in cash to the awardees after the amount was credited in their bank accounts on proper identification. The learned counsel submitted that the learned courts below have not considered the evidence of the court witness and have failed to consider that the court witness has clearly deposed that the mode of payment of the cash amount to the awardees was through the withdrawal forms duly signed by them. The learned counsel submitted that as there is no entrustment, there is no question of criminal breach of trust for constituting the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that as the amount was withdrawn by the awardees themselves under their signatures on the withdrawal forms, there is no occasion for any loss caused to the awardees and the basic ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are also missing in the presence case.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing the materials on record, which do not call for any interference. He submitted that the victims have fully supported the prosecution