IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Rohin Kumar @ Rohin Yadav @ Bhupendra Kumar, S/o. Narayan Prasad Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr. Rev. No. 460 of 2015
Decided On : 13-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 08.04.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 74 of 2014 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2014 passed in G.R. Case No. 242 of 2001 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 97 of 2001; T.R. No. 08 of 2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has been dismissed and conviction of this petitioner for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed and upheld.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this Revision is that the petitioner fabricated and procured a fake transfer letter no. 3829/04.07.2000 (Ext.Z) allegedly issued from Joint Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) transferring him to Minor Irrigation Division, Gumla. It appears that after receiving the above transfer order (Ext.Z), the Minor Irrigation Department, Gumla send a letter No. 837/dated 17.11.2000(Ext.2) to Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar for confirmation of the above transfer letter intimating that Bhupendra Kumar Yadav (Petitioner) had reported and joined on 31.08.2000. In response to above letter, the Patna office disclosed that no such transfer letter bearing no. 3829 dated 04.07.2000 was ever issued in the name of the petitioner and thus, the FIR, was lodged against the petitioner.
4. After lodging the F.I.R., the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioner who then faced trail before the learned C.J.M., Gumla and at the end of the trial, being satisfied with the prosecution case, the accused was convicted and sentenced to two years R.I. U/s 419 I.PC; five years R.I. and Rs. 25,000/- fine U/s 420 I.P.C.; six years R.I. and Rs. 25,000/- U/s 467 I.P.C.; five years R.I. and Rs. 25,000/- fine U/s 468 I.P.C.; and one year R.I. U/S 471 I.P.C.
5. The petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, preferred Cr. Appeal No. 74 of 2014, which was also dismissed and has been assailed in this Criminal Revision.
6. It appears that in the course of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary evidence were also adduced:-Exhibit (1) letter vide memo no. 667 dated 14.02.2001 purportedly issued by Joint Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar to Secretary Water Resources, Jharkhand Ranchi with direction to lodged FIR against the accused.
Exhibit (2) letter vide memo no. 837 dated 17.11.2000 issued by Executive Engineer Gumla to Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar seeking confirmation of transfer order of the petitioner vide letter no. 3829 dated 04.07.2000.
Exhibit (2/1) letter no. 109 dated 17.02.2001 from Executive Engineer, Gumla to Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna again seeking confirmation of transfer order.
Exhibit (3) signature of Executive Engineer on the written report. Exhibit (marked X) (Last Pay Certificate) purportedly issued by Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Katihar to Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department Gumla vide letter no. 896 dated 07.09.2000.
Exhibit (marked Y) office order of Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department Katihar dated 28.08.2000 showing relieving of Bhupendra Kumar, Accountant Clerk, Minor Irrigation Department, Katihar on the basis of letter no. 3829 dated 04.07.2000 issued by Additional Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna.
Exhibit (marked Z) Office order of Water Resourced Minor Irrigation Department State of Bihar dated 04.07.2000, Memo No. 3829 showing transfer of Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, Accountant Clerk Minor Irrigation Department, Katihar to Minor Irrigation Department,
AI
The court upheld the conviction for forgery and cheating, allowing probation instead of imprisonment due to the petitioner's circumstances.
Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and follow proper procedures in framing charges; failure to do so may result in acquittal.
Procedural irregularities in criminal trials can result in quashing convictions if fair trial principles are violated.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the accused on probation based on the nature of the offence, the character of th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.