Tarun Kumar Dey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:61502

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1130 of 2025

¶6

1 - Tarun Kumar Dey S/o Late Shri Mihir Kumar Dey Aged About 48 Years Profession Private Job, R/o Village Ambi, P.S. Beliyabeda, Post Jhargram, District West Medinipur, W.B., Presently Residing At Kelo Irrigation Colony, Lochan Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶7

2 - Chandu Lal Kesharwani S/o Khageshwar Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 47 Years Profession Labour, R/o Village Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. (Present District Sakti, C.G.)

¶8

--- Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶11

________________________	---Respondent ___________________________________
For Appellants	: Mr. Ashok Soni & Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocates
For State/Respondent ________________________	: Mr. Ajit Singh, GA ___________________________________

¶12

WITH

¶13

CRA No. 1131 of 2025

¶14

1 - Tarun Kumar Dey S/o Late Shri Mihir Kumar Dey Aged About 48 Years Profession Private Job, Resident Of Village Ambi, P.S. Beliyabeda, Post Jhargram, District West Medinipur, W.B. Presently Residing At Kelo Irrigation Colony, Lochan Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶15

2 - Chandu Lal Kesharwani S/o Khageshwar Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 47 Years Profession Labour, Resident Of Village Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Jangir-Champa, C.G. (Present District Sakti) (C.G.)

2

--- Appellants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

--- Respondent

¶21

________________________ For Appellants	___________________________________ : Mr. Ashok Soni & Mr. Vijay Shankar
	Mishra, Advocates
For State/Respondent	: Mr. Ajit Singh, GA

¶22

WITH

¶23

CRA No. 1337 of 2025

¶24

Soumitra Das S/o Shri Ardhendu Das Bangali Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Ambi, P.S. - Beliyabeda, Post - Jhargram, District - Pashchim Madanipur (Pashchim Bangal)

¶25

--- Appellant

¶26

Versus

¶27

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶28

--- Respondent

¶29

________________________ For Appellants	___________________________________ : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate
For State/Respondent	: Mr. Ajit Singh, GA

¶30

WITH

¶31

CRA No. 1341 of 2025

¶32

Soumitra Das S/o Shri Ardhendu Das, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Ambi, P.S. Beliyabeda, Post Jhargram, District Pashchim Medanipur (Pashchim Bangal)

¶33

--- Appellant

¶34

Versus

¶35

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶36

--- Respondent

¶37

___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA

¶38

3

¶39

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶40

Judgment on Board

¶41

17/12/2025

¶42

All these appeals are being heard together as the common thread passes through the issue.

¶43

These criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act), (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.01/2017, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants as under :

¶44

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 420/34 of IPC	R.I. for 03-03 years with fine amount of Rs.10,000- 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for 06-06 months
Under Sections 5 & 6 of the Inami Chit Fund and Money Circulation Scheme (Prevention) Act	R.I. for 02-02 years with fine amount of Rs.3,000-3,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for 03- 03 months
Under Sections 10 of the	R.I. for 05-05 years with fine
Chhattisgarh Protection of	amount of Rs.3,00,000-
Depositors Interest Act, 2005	3,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount,

¶45

4

¶46

additional SI for 01-01 year

¶47

(all sentences shall run concurrently)

¶48

Case of prosecution in brief is that the applicant Pappu Kumar Jaiswal made a written complaint on 16.01.2016 against the Appellants and other accused persons at P.S. Ambikapur, that the Appellants and other accused persons has engaged him as an agent in Teesa Agro Project India Limited Company for the purpose of running the business of Soap. Washing Powder and Rabbit Poultry. It was further alleged that the have allured him regarding the heavy benefit working as an agent in the company so that other beneficiaries/persons may invest the amount in the company through their agent and manager. It was further alleged that the company after filling the form from the consumers taken the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 12,00,000/- and accordingly number of persons have also deposited their amount in the company so that they can get lucrative interest against their deposit amount but all of sudden they have closed their office situated at Gudri Road, Ambikapur and flew away. On the basis of the written complaint, the offence U/S 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was registered against the Appellants and the other accused persons in connection with the Crime No. 35 of 2016. The spot map was prepared. The account of the company from the Bhartiya State Bank Branch Chakradharnagar which was found in the name of accused Soumitra Das was also seized. Further some

¶49

5

¶50

documents from the SEBI was also seized.

¶51

After completing the preliminary enquiry, the Police has recorded the statement of the witnesses U/S 161 of CRPC and after completion of enquiry the chargesheet U/S 420/34 of IPC. Section 5 & 6 of Inami Chit & Money Circulation (Prevention) Act and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act , 2005 against the appellants and other accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ambikapur.

¶52

The CJM, Ambikapur registered the case as Criminal Case No. 402 of 2016 and being triable the Special Court committed the same on 29.09.2017 before the Special Court (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act), Ambikapur. District Surguja (C.G.).

¶53

The case was registered as Special Case No. 1/2017, the Appellants were charged U/S 420/34 of IPC, Section 5 & 6 of Inami Chit & Money Circulation (Prevention) Act and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 and they denied.

¶54

The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses namely S.I. Rajeshwar Mahant (PW-1). Narayan Dutt Dubey (PW-2), Ravi Prasad Gupta (PW-3), Rakesh Roshan Pradhan (PW-4), Prakash Kumar Prajapat (PW-5), Neetu Saw (PW-6), Raghwendra Prasad Shukla (PW-7), Rajkumar Agrahari (PW-8). Kamleshwar Pratap

¶55

6

¶56

Singh (PW-9). Ramswaroop Prajapati (PW-10), Ramkali (PW-11), Pappu Jaiswal (PW-12). Bodhsay Paikara (PW-13), Bank Manager Ashok Kumar Sharma (PW-14), Bank Manager Vijay Praveen Kujur (PW-15) and Investigating Officer Abdul Munaf (PW-16) for proving its case. The accused Soumitra Das examined the handwriting expert Ku. Sunanda Dhenge, as an defence witness (DW-1).

¶57

The learned Special Court on the basis of evidence brought on record, found the Appellants found the guilty for commission of offence U/S 420/34 of IPC, Section 5 & 6 of Inami Chit & Money Circulation (Prevention) Act and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 and passed the judgment of conviction and sentenced in aforesaid mentioned manner. Hence, these appeals.

¶58

Learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants contended that they do not wants to press these appeals on merits and confines their arguments to the sentence part only. They further submit that the incident is of the year 2016 and the appellants are facing lis since 2016. Appellants have undergone almost 03 years and 04 months out of 05 years sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶59

Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the

¶60

7

¶61

argument raised by counsel for the appellants, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶62

However, learned State counsel has submitted a document dated

¶63

14.12.2025 issued by the Thana Incharge Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) which is as under :

¶64

“CRA No- 1131/2025 Tarun Kumar Dey & Anr-Vs-State of CG & Ors- �प⨾�र〿�तआद♇�शद☿द♇ा㸪��क 27.11.2025 क�स㠂�बⰂ�धे䜰�।

¶65

उप⨾��कᕍतव㔿�षा㸱��त्䵇�तस㠂�द♇ቝ嶌��तप⨾्䵔 क�े䜰 �ध❍ा㸱े䜰 स㠂�ल㉇�खह㥈% व㔿क CRA No1131/2025 Tarun Kumar Dey & Anr- Vs State of CG & Ors- े䜰� प⨾�र〿�तआद♇�शद☿द♇ा㸪��क 27.11.2025 क�स㠂�द♇��े䜰�ज᰾�ा㸪क��' चᨾ�ह㥈)्䵇ईह㥈%।

¶66

उकᕍतस㠂�बⰂ�धे䜰�ቦ暍)े䜰�ा㸪प⨾,ल㈿ल㉇स㠂अध)्䵌के䜰 ह㥈�द♇ा㸱स㠂�्䵇,ज᰾�ቛ宋��ቦ暍)े䜰�ा㸪कल㉇�कᕍट� ए��ज᰿ज᰾ल㉇�द♇ण⍍डℾ�ध✿धक��' अቚ媌8बⰂक�प⨾,�ज᰿ज᰾ल㉇�स㠂�्䵇,ज᰾�छ०े䜰०स㠂�उप⨾��कᕍत ज᰾�ा㸪क��' चᨾ�ह㥈)्䵇 ईथ╀) ज᰾�ቦ暍)े䜰�ा㸪कल㉇�कᕍट�ए��ज᰿ज᰾ल㉇�द♇ण⍍डℾ�ध✿धक��' अቚ媌8बⰂक�प⨾,�ज᰿ज᰾ल㉇�स㠂�्䵇,ज᰾�ቛ宋��अप⨾ा㸪�प⨾्䵔े䜰 �उकᕍत्䵚 क�णए��प⨾्䵌क��क� स㠂�बⰂ�धे䜰�कल㉇�कᕍट��चᨾकश�ख�े䜰�स㠂�ध�र〿�तअल㈿�ल㉇�ख��क> ख�ज᰾बⰂ)ा㸪क>्䵇 ई। उकᕍता㸪�े䜰 स㠂�क�ईर〿�क�डℾ�/ क�णद♇ज᰾�ह㥈�ा㸪�ा㸪ह㥈? प⨾�ा㸱�्䵇 ा㸱�।उकᕍता㸪�े䜰 स㠂� व㔿कस㠂) थ╀�ा㸪��अन⡍ा㸱क�ा㸱��ल㉇ा㸱स㠂�क�ईप⨾्䵔 अथ╀��क�डℾ�ज᰾ा㸪ल㈿शक�ा㸱त्䵚�प⩍ता㸪ह㥈? ह㥁आह㥈%।अतए�ज᰾�ा㸪क��' व㔿ा㸪��कह㥈% ल㉇�खव㔿का㸱�्䵇ा㸱�ह㥈%।"

¶67

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶68

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in recordings the findings as regards conviction of the appellants

¶69

8

¶70

in the aforesaid Sections.

¶71

With regard to the sentence part, maximum sentence of the appellants is RI for 05-05 years. Considering the fact that the date of incident is of the year 2016 more than 09 years has been lapsed. Further considering that the appellants have already undergone almost 03 years and 04 months out of period of 05 years’ maximum sentence imposed upon them by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon them, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly.

¶72

The criminal appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶73

Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶76

Vasant

Tarun Kumar Dey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Kumar Dey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tarachand Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuber Minz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shilpa Kaushik Vs Santram Sahu

Tarun Kumar Dey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Soumitra Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh