Dismissed

State of Jharkhand through Dy. Commr., H.Bagh v. Keshav Dayal Agarwal

Jharkhand HC3 Aug 2016Acq. App./47/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an acquittal appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge to a trial order acquitting the accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court upheld the lower court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove misappropriation, citing the absence of documentary evidence and key witness testimony.

What did the court decide?

The instant Acquittal Appeal stands dismissed; the order of acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate is upheld.

State of Jharkhand through Dy. Commr., H.Bagh Vs Keshav Dayal… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

Acquittal Appeal No. 47 of 2001

¶3

[Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.03.2001 passed by Shri N.K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 1260 of 1995, corresponding to T.R. No. 241 of 2001]

¶4

The State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh

¶5

... … Appellant

¶6

Versus Keshav Dayal Agarwal, son of Late Ayodhya Ram, resident of village and P.O.- Ichak, District- Hazaribagh

¶7

... … Accused-Respondent

¶8

For the Appellant-State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. For the Accused-Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Advocate

¶9

-----

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶12

Dated: 03rd August, 2016 Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶13

The judgment and order dated 27.03.2001 in G.R. No. 1260 of 1995 corresponding to T.R. No. 241 of 2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh, is under challenge in the instant Acquittal Appeal filed under Section 378(5)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused-respondent has been set free by the trial court, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. On the basis of the written report dated 31.07.1995 of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh, a First Information Report being Ichak P.S. Case No. 62 of 1995 was registered against the respondent on 02.08.1995 u/s 419/420/467/468/470/471/477(A)/409/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed by the court for the aforesaid offences vide order dated 21.07.1998, which were

¶14

¶15

denied by the accused and he claimed trial. During the trial the prosecution examined 3 witnesses.

¶16

3. While evaluating the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court observed that it has not been established whether the accused has actually misappropriated the amount as alleged. The trial court further observed that the allegation against the accused merely makes out a case of not keeping accounts and not maintaining the register properly.

¶17

4. The written report of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices accuses the respondent of misappropriating Rs. 1,99,000/- for which National Saving Certificates and Kisan Vikas Patra were received on different dates, however, the respondent did not account for sale proceeds of the certificates as detailed in Annexure-A. It is an admitted position that no document was produced by the prosecution during the trial and only the signature of the witnesses were identified and marked as exhibits. Further allegation against the respondent is that he did not account for Rs. 1,01,270/- which was the amount deposited by different depositors in SB A/c. The depositors were allegedly examined by the department, however, during the trial none of the depositors were examined by the prosecution. Another allegation against the accused is of withdrawing Rs. 91,540/which was allegedly withdrawn from the savings account of different depositors and withdrawal entries were not made in the pass-books, however, again none of the account holders were examined by the prosecution.

¶18

5. The trial court has also noticed that neither the persons from whose account money has been misappropriated were produced as witnesses nor any document has been exhibited by the prosecution during the trial. P.W.-1 is the person who had joined Ichak Post Office in September, 1993. He had succeeded the accused. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the post office was opened by the key provided from the house of the

¶19

¶20

respondent. P.W.-2 is the informant and he has deposed in the court that the respondent deposited the amount with interest before the lodging of the case. P.W.-3 has also deposed that the department did not sustain any loss.

¶21

6. After rescanning the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that the trial court has not committed any error in law. It has properly appreciated the evidence and reached the correct conclusion. This is not a case warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal fails.

¶22

7. The instant Acquittal Appeal stands dismissed.

¶23

(Virender Singh, C.J.)

¶24

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶25

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 03.08.2016 Manish/NAFR

State of Jharkhand through Dy. Commr., H.Bagh v. Keshav Dayal Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Jharkhand through Dy. Commr., H.Bagh v. Keshav Dayal Agarwal

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

Similar cases

Prakash Tekriwal Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Railway and Ors.

The Union of India through the Ministry of Railway and Ors. Vs Prakash Tekriwal and Ors.

Vivek Kumar Dubey and Ors. Vs the State of Jhakrhand and Ors.

Bijay Shankar Singh Vs Dept of Art Culture Sports

Samajik Parivartan Kendra through Its Secretary Sunita Devi Vs Land Reforms and Revenue Department

Ashish Kumar Vs Health