Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Shushant Kumar Patnaik @ Susant Kumar Pattanaik - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opp. Party
Cr. Revision No. 487 of 2019
Decided On : 14-06-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - CONVICTION UNDER IPC SECTIONS - Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 of IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 406 and 471 of the IPC, emphasizing the definitions of criminal breach of trust and the dishonest use of forged documents. The court interpreted Section 406 as requiring proof of entrustment and failure to account for property, while Section 471 was interpreted to address the use of forged documents as genuine. The concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts were upheld, establishing the petitioner's guilt based on substantial evidence of misappropriation and forgery.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with misappropriating funds from the N.I.M.E. Co-operative Stores Limited while serving as Manager Account. An audit revealed a shortfall of Rs. 13,79,514/- due to the petitioner not depositing cash collected from sales. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 406, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, with the trial court imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fines.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court partly upheld the conviction, acquitting the petitioner of charges under Sections 467 and 468, but sustaining the convictions under Sections 406 and 471. The court found sufficient evidence of misappropriation and the use of forged documents, confirming the trial court's findings.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the convictions under Sections 406 and 471 of the IPC, and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution established the elements of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 and the dishonest use of forged documents under Section 471. The evidence demonstrated that the petitioner had dominion over the funds and failed to account for them, while also using forged bank counterfoils to misrepresent deposits.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the appellate court's judgment and the sentences under Sections 406 and 471 of the IPC.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice.
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
1. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2019 whereby the appellate court has partly allowed and partly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has also modified the sentence passed under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence under Section 471 of IPC was reduced to 04 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and sentence under Section 406 of IPC was not interference with and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned appellate court has acquitted the petitioner from the charges under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC.
2. The petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of an FIR and faced Trial under the aforesaid sections being G.R. Case No. 454/2010 (T.R. No. 89/2019). The FIR was filed on 20.08.2010. The learned trial Court had convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for offence under Section 406 of IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 05 years for offence under Section 467 with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence; rigorous imprisonment for 05 years for offence under Section 468 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence and rigorous imprisonment for 05 years under Section 471 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The learned trial court further assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 13,79,514/- and accordingly directed for payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to N.I.M.E Co-operative Store Limited as compensation under Section 353 of Cr.P.C. So far as compensation amount is concerned, the appellate court recorded that an amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- was paid by way of bank draft to N.I.M.E. Co-operative Store Limited in terms of the direction by this Court at the time of grant of anticipatory bail being A.B.A. No. 4767/2010 vide order dated 14.02.2011 and accordingly the said amount was directed to be adjusted against the compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded by the learned trial court and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments submitted that the learned courts have not considered the evidences properly as there were many other persons who were involved in the alleged transactions, but the petitioner was isolated and he faced the trial before the learned trial court. The learned counsel submitted that there was no signature of the petitioner on various documents which were exhibited, rather the trial court recorded that Exhibits- 9, 9/2, 9/4, 9/5 and 9/6 produced by the prosecution were in the writing of the petitioner in the store register and other exhibits which were counter-foils were written by other staffs of the store on the instructions of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that the signatures of the petitioner were also not sent for verification through expert.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate court while upholding the conviction of the petitioner has not considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter properly and therefore, the judgment of the appellate court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 406 and 471 of IPC calls for interference.
6. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction under Section 471 of IPC has to be seen with Section 465 of the IPC and the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 465 of IPC is only two years, but the appellate court though has reduced the punis
A person cannot be charged with both cheating and criminal breach of trust for the same transaction; the prosecution must prove the specific elements of each offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Procedural irregularities in criminal trials can result in quashing convictions if fair trial principles are violated.
The ingredients of the offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the IPC are satisfied when a person fraudulently induces another person to invest money in a scheme, promising high re....
The prosecution must prove entrustment and dishonest intent in offenses under sections 409 and 468 IPC, failure of which leads to acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
