The acknowledgment of taking fewer bags than actually taken indicated dishonesty and criminal intent, leading to the conviction under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.-2.

3. Heard Ms. Mahua Palit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

4. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 17.03.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-IX, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 101/2004, whereby the learned appellate court had affirmed the judgment and order of sentence dated 17.04.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. C-III 129 of 1999 (T.R. No. 877 of 2004).

5. The petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 403, 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 403 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to serve rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 420 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 424 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments of the petitioner

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his argument, has submitted that the entire dispute arises out of one so-called agreement dated 06.01.1993 which was said to be signed by the petitioner. As per the agreement, certain bags of tamarind (emli) were to be supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was supposed to sell the same for an amount not less than 4.50 per kg with a commission of 2% of the total amount. The learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that although the petitioner had lifted 494 bags of tamarind and he was supposed to make payment of Rs. 1,19,819.70 to the complaint, but he had made payment of Rs. 70,131/- only and the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 49,688.70 remained due. The learned counsel submits that the entire case arises out of civil dispute between the parties and there is no criminality, as such, involved in the present case. He further submits that there was also enormous delay in filing the complaint case, in as much as, the so-called agreement was dated 06.01.1993 and the complaint case was filed only in the year 1999.

7. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1687 of 2016 dated 11.04.2017 (Suresh Pradhan and Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr.) as well as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699 (Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh) to submit that merely because the petitioner had failed to honour the agreement, no case of cheating can be made out. He submits that the basic ingredients for offence, for which the petitioner has been convicted, are totally absent. He submits that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set-aside.

8. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1993; the complaint case was lodged in the year 1999; the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent; the petitioner has remained in custody for a few days during the pendency of the present revision petition and that the petitioner has faced the rigorous of criminal case for a very long time, some sympathetic view may be taken.

9. The learned counsel has further submitted that he has taken instructions from his client that he is also ready to abide by any modification of sentence which may include enhancement of fine which may be remitted to the organization of the complainant upon due identification.

Arguments of the opposite party No.-2

10. The learned counsel appearing on behal