Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Shaikh Arif @ Sk. Arif –Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Revision No.44 of 2018
Decided on : 09-02-2024
[CRIMINAL LAW] - [FRAUD AND FORGERY] - [IPC SECTIONS 419, 420, 467, 468, 471] - [The court discussed the provisions of IPC sections 419 (cheating by impersonation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document). The court interpreted these sections to establish that the petitioner had engaged in fraudulent activities by misrepresenting himself as a power of attorney holder and executing a sale deed based on forged documents. The concurrent sentences imposed reflected the severity of the offenses, but the court ultimately modified the sentence based on the time already served and the nature of the dispute, emphasizing the need for justice rather than mere punishment.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of fraudulently selling property by misrepresenting himself as the power of attorney holder for the actual owner. The complainant paid a total of Rs. 50,00,000 for the property, but later discovered that the power of attorney was forged and the property was owned by someone else. The petitioner was charged under multiple sections of the IPC for his actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the offenses under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471, confirming the findings of the lower courts based on reliable evidence. However, it modified the sentence due to the time already served and the nature of the dispute, suggesting that further imprisonment would not serve justice.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was guilty of the charges under the IPC sections mentioned, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the essence of the offenses committed by the petitioner involved deceit and misrepresentation, which warranted conviction. However, it also recognized the principle of proportionality in sentencing, allowing for modification based on the time served and the context of the dispute being primarily civil in nature.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revision but modified the sentence to reflect the time already served and imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the victim, with a default imprisonment clause if the fine was not paid.
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
This Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the Judgment dated 22.12.2017 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (Petitioner herein) against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2017 passed by learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has found the present petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and further convicted the petitioner as under: Under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for 30 days.
Under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment period of three years and to pay a Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for 15 days.
Under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for 30 days.
Under section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year and six months.
And further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is based upon the complaint of opposite party No. 2 stating therein that upon being approached by the accused, he agreed to purchase Holding No. 4 and 5 of Masjid Road, Golmuri. Accused represented himself as Power of Attorney Holder of legal heir of Late Jairam @ R. Jairaman, the owner of said property. The total consideration amount was fixed at Rs. 63,00,000/- and agreement was executed on 23.8.2010. On 24.8.2010, Rs. 15 Lakh cash and Rs. 5 lakhs were paid through cheque to the accused. On 22.01.2011, Rs. 12 lakh was paid through cheque No. 378984 and money receipt was issued. On 2.5.2011, Rs.8 lakh was paid through cheque and lastly on 13.2.2012 Rs. 10 lakh was paid through another cheque. Altogether total amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was made. Out of which, cheque amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- was credited in the account of accused Sk. Arif. The complainant requested for physical verification, but was assured by the accused that everything will be done after executing the sale deed. On 13.2.2012, Sale Deed was executed by the accused as Power of Attorney Holder in favour of the informant, wherein the consideration amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- was shown. But after the said sale deed, possession was not actually delivered and accused on one pretext or another, delayed in delivering the possession. Then the informant inquired into the matter and found that person, who executed the power of attorney in favour of accused were not the real owner and alleged power of attorney is fake and forged. Informant visited Holding Nos. 4 and 5 and found that property is owned by other person namely J.M. George and against the said property, Title Partition Suit is pending between the co-sharers of the said property belonging to Late Poopathy Anamel and her husband Late Raja Ram. Informant requested the accused to return the said amount, but he threatened of dire consequences.
On the basis of said complaint, Complaint case C/1 Case No. 514/2015 was registered and was referred to the P.S. concerned U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. leading into the institution of Golmuri P.S. Case N
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable evidence, consideration of the circumstances, and the imposition of appropriate sentences and fines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify sentences based on the circumstances of the case, including the lengthy trial period, lack of criminal antecedent, ....
The court affirmed the verdict of acquittal due to lack of evidence and concluded that the dispute was purely civil. The court allowed the criminal revision petition and acquitted the petitioner of t....
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
