Conviction under IPC sections 420 and 120-B set aside due to lack of evidence for dishonest intention or conspiracy.

JUDGMENT :

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Supriya Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Praful Jojo, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against order dated 21st May 2018 passed by Sri Om Prakash, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the petitioner passed by Ms. Shweta Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No.348 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No.2459 of 2000 (T.R. Case No.804 of 2012), by which, the petitioner has been convicted under section 420 read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, has been affirmed and appeal has been dismissed.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant used to do business of transportation of coal by giving his trucks on hire from M/s Satya Glass Industry, Industrial area, Buxar, due to which, the good relationship has developed between the informant and the owner of M/s Satya Glass Industry namely Binay Bhushan Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari. On 30.11.2000, co-accused-Munna Tiwari told the informant that his company has got allotment of coal but he has no money and if the money will not be deposited in time, the allotment will be cancelled and co-accused-Munna Tiwari offered him to invest money in his business with proposal to get benefit of 30 % profit from the total benefit. It is further alleged that in the beginning, the informant did not agree because he has kept the money for the purpose of marriage of his daughter but Munna Tiwari assured the informant that he will return his money within one month with profit. Thereafter, the informant agreed to pay money. It is further alleged that Munna Tiwari told the informant to pay the money to the Coal Handling Agent Dinesh Kumar Singh (petitioner) on 01.11.2000, then the informant said that he knew the petitioner as he used to come to his office. As per agreement, the petitioner came to the office of the informant on 01.11.2000 at Moti Sao where the informant and his friend namely Sachhidanand Singh were present and he gave Rs.5,58,000/- to the petitioner in several bundle by putting his initial as “RK” as per norms of the business. It is further alleged that the informant gave his bag for keeping the money but he refused and kept the money in his bag. Thereafter, the informant told the petitioner to come in his vehicle for State Bank of India, Kuju Branch, but the petitioner again refused to go with the informant and went away in his vehicle bearing Reg. No. BR-1E-6970. The whole activities raised suspicion against the petitioner, thereafter, the informant for clearing his doubt went to SBI Kuju Branch and inquire about the arrival of petitioner in the bank but he came to know that the petitioner had not come to the bank. Further, the informant called the owner of the Satya Glass Industry but he found that Munna Tiwari the owner of the Satya Glass Industry was not at his house. Thereafter, the informant along with his friend searched the petitioner at several places but failed to trace out the petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner hatching criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Munna Tiwari has cheated the informant.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below submitted that admittedly no overt act has been attributed against petitioner and no ingredients of conspiracy or the offence of cheating is constituted against the petitioner. It is admitted case of the informant that petitioner was acting as an agent of the main accus