Advocates:
['ARUP KR DEY', '', 'MADHAV PRASAD', 'MONALISA SINGH', 'BAJRANG KUMAR', 'SHIVANI JALUKA', 'NAVNEET SAHAY', 'VINAY KUMAR TIWARY', '', 'SAKET KUMAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 908 of 2012

Rautu Bodra S/o Bishun Bodra R/O Village Bodrabasa, Sankosai P.O-

sadar, P.S- Chaibsa Mufassil District- Singhbhum west.

…

…

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

…

… Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate

Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate

For the Opp. Party

: Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate

14/16.11.2021

Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner

along with Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner.

2.

Heard Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of

the opposite party- State.

3.

The present revision application is directed against the judgement

dated 28.01.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2000 by the

learned 1^st Class Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa by which the

learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the

petitioner. The petitioner and the co-accused Dumbi Ichaguttu were

convicted under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code

vide judgement and order of sentence dated 01.09.2000 and the

petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three

years under Section 409 I.P.C.; Rigorous Imprisonment for two years

under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code; Rigorous Imprisonment for two

years for offence under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code and Rigorous

Imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 120-B of Indian

Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed upon the

petitioner. The judgement of conviction was passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1^st Class, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West in Chaibasa Muffasil

P.S. Case No. 91 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 419 of 1994.

The petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2000 against

judgement of his conviction and the co-accused had filed Criminal

Appeal No. 77 of 2000 and both the appeals were taken up together and

decided by the impugned appellate court9s judgement dated 28.01.2005.

4.

It has been mentioned by the petitioner in para 9 of the present

petition that the co-accused namely Dumbi Ichaguttu had preferred

2

Criminal Revision No. 318 of 2005 which, at the time of filing of the

present case, was pending. However, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that the said criminal revision no. 318 of 2005

has been dismissed on account of non-prosecution.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

judgement convicting the petitioner is perverse in view of the manner of

consideration of the evidences on record mentioned by the learned

appellate court at para 21 of the impugned judgement. He submits that

the so-called beneficiaries of loan and so-called account holders were

examined as P.Ws. and the judgement has been passed on the basis of

their oral evidence only and signatures which were found in the

document of the bank in connection with which they had denied having

put their signature, were never marked as exhibit. He submits that those

signatures having not been marked as exhibit, never formed a part of the

record and accordingly, denial of signature by the aforesaid beneficiaries,

was not sufficient to convict the petitioner. He submits that it was for the

prosecution to lead further evidence to demonstrate that the signatures

that were put by aforesaid beneficiaries, were not their signatures and

appropriate steps regarding verification of signature etc. should have

been undertaken by the prosecution.

6.

The learned counsel submits that under aforesaid circumstances,

the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner

beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further subm