The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove fraudulent intention, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation of funds beyond all reasonable doubt in cases involving chit fund schemes and financial misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. Heard Mr. Suraj Verma, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State.

3. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406/34 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court was affirmed and their conviction and sentence under Section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and the appeal was partly allowed, but dismissed on the point of judgment and order of conviction under Sections 406/34 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.02.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 342 of 2004/T.R. No. 06 of 2012 (arising out of Noamundi P.S. Case No. 25 of 2004 dated 07.08.2004 whereby and whereunder the petitioners were held guilty and convicted under Sections 406, 420, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years each for the offence under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each separately for the offence under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month each and they were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 Years each for the offence under Section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone by the petitioners be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed against them.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned courts below have not scrutinized the evidence properly, so far as the conviction of the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. He submitted that the basic ingredients of fraudulent intention is totally absent in the present case and as per the evidence, it has come that there was a self-help group created where all the members used to contribute and there were transactions of money amongst them from such contribution and in such circumstances, no case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as the offence of criminal breach of trust is concerned, the same is also not made out, in view of the fact that there is no evidence that the money was converted by the petitioner for his own use and accordingly, the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against them. He further submitted that there is no cogent material on record to suggest that the petitioners were involved in collection and retention of the money, rather there is evidence on record adduced from the side of the prosecution itself to show that monetary transactions between the petitioners and those witnesses were already existing and the witnesses were highly interested witnesses in the case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the learned courts below have wrongly convicted Mr. Santosh Kumar (Petitioner No.1) being the son of the co-accused namely, Ramendra Prasad (Petitioner No.2) although Santosh Kumar was not even alleged to be a member of the so-called chit fund group or self-help group. The learned counsel further submitted that the present proceeding was given a criminal colour, although apparently it is a pure civil dis