Disposed

Jay Prakash Jatav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024CRLR/1231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against conviction under Section 409 IPC for alleged embezzlement of postal deposits. Considering the revisionist's old age, custody period and pending backlog, the court granted bail during pendency of the revision with a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Revisionist released on bail during pendency of revision; personal bond Rs.50,000 plus two sureties; half the fine to be deposited within one month, balance stayed.

Jay Prakash Jatav vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1231 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Jay Prakash Jatav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Braj Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Order on prayer for bail/suspension of sentence in memo of revision.

¶6

The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Jhansi in Case Crime No.4176 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.328 of 1995 under Section 409 of IPC,, P.S. Nabavad, District Jhansi as well as the appellate judgment and order dated 25.01.202024 passed by Additional Session Judge/FTC (O.A.W.), Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2014. By the impugned judgment and order learned trial court has convicted the revisionist for charge under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,50,000/as fine. The judgment of the trial court has been affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2014 vide order dated 25.01.2024.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶8

According to prosecution version the accused/revisionist was posted as Assistant Head Post Office, Jhansi and he had embezzled a sum of Rs.1,68,368.70p during period 01.11.1989 to 31.07.1993, as during that period he was working on R.D. counter and he had not deposited the money collected by depositors/agent/women pradhan namely Sri Gokul Prasad Dubey, O.P. Agarwal and Smt. Geeta Parmarthi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate evidence on record in proper perspective recorded and affirmed the conviction and sentence to the revisionist.

¶10

On perusal of order sheet of appellate court, it is crystal clear that certain wherein original list of documents which are placed on record by the trial court, even after order passed by the District

¶11

Judge for reconstruction of miscellaneous record and no reconstruction was made. The FIR was lodged in the case on the basis of inquiry report submitted by PW8. P.D. Kulkarni, who was posted as Assistant Superintendent, Jhansi. During that period he is the star witness of the case and he had conducted inquiry against the revisionist Jay Prakash Jatav. He has admitted in the evidence that original inquiry report was not available on record. However, he acknowledged his signature on inquiry papers and photo copies of log book to be produced from the Head Post Office, Jhansi. He has stated that during the course of inquiry he had perused the relevant log book and found that sum deposited by Sri Gokul Prasad Dubey, O.P. Agarwal and Smt. Geeta Parmarthi on R.D. counter was not deposited by him with cashier. However, cashier himself was not examined during trial. The main allegation against him is that he had not made an entry of deposit in the log book.

¶12

He next submitted that PW8 has admitted in his evidence that he had not made any endorsement in the cash book, he had asked for preservation of all relevant records which were taken into consideration during inquiry. He had examined log book and cash book, but Mohar Chhap Pustika and hand to hand book were not presented before him for perusal. He had not examined APM and Cashier during inquiry, he has only examined two group leaders Om Praksh and Gokul Prasad and women agent Geeta Parmarthi. He summoned Jay Prakash Jatav during inquiry, but there is no record regarding summoning before him. He has admitted that he was never posted with Jay Prakash Jatav and he is not conversant with his signature and handwriting.

¶13

He further submitted that without perusal of Mohar Chhap Pustika it is difficult to hold that to whom the money was entrusted for deposit in the post office, as duties of postal assistants are often changed from date to date and they are posted at different counters in routine manner.

¶14

He lastly submitted that no account holder was examined in department inquiry, who could categorically state that on which date, what amount was deposited and with whom. Even Gokul Prasad has not appeared as a prosecution during inquiry. He also submitted that accused-revisionist has already suffered incarceration for a period of 10 months, as per custody certificate dated 03.08.2024, he has under gone actual period of one year custody so far. He is aged about 76 years as per medical documents filed with the supplementary affidavit.

¶15

He prays for enlarging the revisionists on bail during the pendency

¶16

of present revision, and further submitted that present revision is not likely to be taken up for hearing in near future, due to heavy backlog. There is no allegation against him regarding misuse of liberty of bail. The accused-revisionists undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail.

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that from perusal of the original evidence on record it is obvious that revisionist embezzled a total sum of Rs.1,68,368/- during his tenure as postal assistant between 01.11.1989 to31.07.1993. He had received the amount from depositors, but not deposited the same in relevant account and embezzled the public money. Thus, the charges against the revisionist are serious in nature. However, the period of incarceration of the revisionist is not disputed.

¶18

Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and after going through the impugned judgment keeping in view the facts of the case and a period of custody of the revisionist, which is seven years of imprisonment and also the old age of the revisionist, and the fact that revision is not likely to be decided early, due to pendency of backlog cases and without further commenting on the merits of the case this Court deems it fit to enlarge the accusedrevisionist on bail during the pendency of this revision.

¶19

Let revisionist, Jay Prakash Jatav convicted and sentenced in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to furnishing undertaking that they will co-operate in the hearing of the revision.

¶20

Half of the fine imposed shall be deposited within one month after release and remaining fine shall remain stayed, and in case of failure in depositing the amount of fine within the stipulated period, the trial court will take coercive action against the revisionist.

¶21

Order on memo of revision.

¶22

Lower court record has been received in the office.

¶23

List this revision be listed for final hearing in its due course.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Ashish/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jay Prakash Jatav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash Jatav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Digambar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Rajesh Kumar vs State of Up

Bhola @ Nafisa Khan and Another vs State of Up and Another

Sanjay vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivshankar Yadav vs State of U.P.