Allowed

Mahendra Nath Singh And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Dec 2019Cr.Rev./62/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision regarding conviction under Section 380 IPC held perverse absence evidence of physical presence petitioner or meeting mind upheld conviction solely truck ownership insufficient ends justice demanded acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Judgment dated 04.10.2010 upholding conviction and sentence set aside insofar as it relates to Petitioner No.1; criminal revision allowed.

Mahendra Nath Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 62 of 2011

¶3

Mahendra Nath Singh, son of Late Devenath Singh; resident of Village- Baldiha, P.O. & P.S.-Kopa, District- Chhapra (Bihar).

¶4

MD. Jainul, son of Late Sheik Mohmad Ishque; resident of Ansari Mohalla, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro; (expired on 21.12.2017 as per report of SDJM-cum-Spl. CBI J.M., Dhanbad in Letter No. 710/19 dated 06.11.2019)

¶5

Raj Bahadur Sharma, son of Late Hanuman Sharma, resident of Village-Ramsahipur, P.O. & P.S.- Jamua, DistrictSultanpur (U.P.) (Dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 28.11.2019) … … Petitioners Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner No.1 : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Party-C.B.I. : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Adv. : Mr. B. K. Prasad, Advocate

¶10

¶11

19 /06.12.2019

¶12

1. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner No.1 along with Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate. The learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1 submitted that this petition is confined to Petitioner No.1 as Petitioner No.2 has expired and the case of Petitioner No.3 has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 28.11.2019.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-C.B.I. alongwith Mr. B. K. Prasad, Advocate.

¶14

3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the legality or propriety or regularity of the judgment dated 04.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 106

¶15

¶16

of 2009 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 20.03.2009 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Spl. Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 5 (s) of 1994 (T.R. No. 1084 of 2009) was affirmed and the Petitioner No.1 was convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.

¶17

4. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Ram Pukar Singh, Sub-Inspector of the Harla Police Station lodged a written report on 05.03.1993 alleging therein that in intervening night of 04.03.1993 and 05.03.1993, the informant received a confidential information about Bokaro Steel Plant Limited (BSL) property i.e. a good quantity of steel was to be illegally removed from BSL, by virtue of connivance of Bokaro Steel Plant Management and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). Immediately upon receiving such information, the informant proceeded towards Gate No. 3 of BSL with his police force and thereafter, when the informant reached Mahuar More, villagers namely, Hakim Mahato and Hafij Ansari met him who also confirmed the news of illegal removal of steel from BSL. Thereafter, the informant along with his associates at 4:40 a.m. saw some trucks loaded with heavy articles coming from the location of Gate No.3 of BSL and as soon as the said trucks reached near Mahuar More, the police party tried to intercept them, but the driver of the first truck stopped the truck at some distance and fled away. Thereafter, the police party returned back to the truck where the informant also saw three other trucks standing behind the aforesaid truck, but drivers of all the trucks had already fled away.

¶18

¶19

5. It is further case of the prosecution that the informant inspected truck bearing No. BRY-5672 in presence of above two villagers namely, Hakim Mahato and Hafij Ansari and he found a thick steel slab having its length equivalent to body of the truck 4 ft. in width, loaded therein and likewise, after inspection of truck No. BHJ-8601 and BRN-7539, he found each truck loaded with one piece of steel slab similar in width and length. Thereafter, the fourth truck i.e. the last truck bearing No. OSC8916 was also inspected by the informant wherein he found three steel slabs, each of similar size in the truck. It is further case of the prosecution that the informant seized the aforesaid steel slabs in presence of two independent villagers and the seizure list was also signed by the said villagers.

¶20

6. It has been the specific case of the prosecution that the said steel slabs must have been loaded in the respective trucks through powerful cranes and such type of cranes are available only with the Bokaro Steel Plant Management and accordingly, such cranes have been used to load the slabs in the trucks. Thus, it is concluded by the prosecution that the said seized slabs belongs to Bokaro Steel Plant Limited and have been loaded in the trucks after taking the trucks inside the BSL premises after breaking the seal. It has been further concluded by the prosecution that thereafter, the slabs might have been loaded with the help of cranes of BSL, owners and drivers of trucks seized, officials of CISF deputed in sealing the gate and others who were on duty at the gates and the operators of slabing mill of BSL having connived and conspired with each other, have removed the said six steel slabs near about 43 tons in weight and worth Rs. 3 Lakhs belonging to BSL Plant.

¶21

7. On 05.03.1993, the occurrence was reported by the informant to local police through written report, on the basis of which, a police case was registered and finally, state police submitted the charge-sheet against altogether 19 accused

¶22

¶23

persons. In the meantime, by virtue of a notification of Government of Bihar dated 15.10.1993 and subsequent corrigendum, the investigation of the aforesaid case was transferred to the C.B.I. (Central Bureau of Investigation) and thereafter, the C.B.I. registered a fresh formal FIR on 26.05.1994 and proceeded with the investigation. After due investigation, Central Bureau of Investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the accused-persons. The learned court below took cognizance of offence and on 13.03.2001, charge was framed under Section 120-B read with Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code against accused M. Rai, Prasadi Paswan, B. L. Prasad, Ram Naresh Prasad, R. D. Sahu, M. S. Rana, K. P. Siddiqui, T. K. Malviya, Mulk Raj Singh, Chandrika Singh, Bharat Singh, K. D. Apata, S. S. Lal, Raj Bahadur Sharma, Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, Basudeo Singh, Mahendra Nath Singh and Md. Jainul, charge under Section 380 of IPC against accused M. Rai, Prasadi Paswan, B. L. Prasad, Ram Naresh Prasad, R. D. Sahu, K. P. Siddiqui, Mulk Raj Singh, Chandrika Singh and K. D. Apata, charge under Section 411 of IPC against accused Ram Chandra Prasad, Raj Bahadur Sharma and some other unknown persons and charge under Section 457 of IPC against accused Chandrika Singh were framed.

¶24

8. Ram Chandra Prasad died during pendency of the case and accordingly, his name was expunged from the records vide order dated 04.10.2004. Further, Basudeo Singh also died during pendency of the case and as there was no specific information regarding his death, the case record with respect to Basudeo Singh was separated vide order dated 05.02.2009.

¶25

9. Thus, so far as the Petitioner No.1 of the present case is concerned, the charge was framed against him under Section 120-B read with Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and no charge was framed under Sections 411 or 457 of IPC against the Petitioner No.1.

¶26

¶27

Arguments of the counsel for the Petitioner No.1

¶28

10. The learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1 submitted that altogether 23 prosecution witnesses were examined before the learned trial court. Out of which P.Ws. 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 21 were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-1 was the informant of the case and P.W.-2 was the driver of the truck bearing No. OSC 8916 whose owner was Brij Kishor Singh (since deceased). P.W-2 was an approver witness. 11. The learned counsel submitted that so far as the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, he was the owner of the truck bearing No. BRY-5672 and from the records of the case, it is apparent that his truck was neither driven by co-accused and convict namely, Raj Bahadur Sharma, nor it was driven by the P.W.-2 (Biranchi Rai) who was the driver of another truck. 12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1 while advancing his arguments submitted that considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction under Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner No.1 is pointing out the perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below, which calls for interference. He submitted that the entire evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence has been discussed in detail in the trial’s court judgment and upon perusal of the entire judgment, though there can be no doubt that the Petitioner No.1 was the owner of one of the trucks, but admittedly, he was neither present in the premises of Bokaro Steel Plant Limited, nor was present at the time and place of occurrence and he has been made accused only on the ground that the seized articles, which were the property of Bokaro Steel Limited, were seized from his truck. It has also come in evidence that the driver of the truck had run away. He further submitted that admittedly no charge was framed against the Petitioner No.1 under Section 411 of IPC and the charge was framed only under Section 380 read with Section 120B of IPC.

¶29

¶30

He submitted that separate charge was framed against the coaccused under section 380 IPC, but the name of the Petitioner No.1 was not included. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner No.1 has been convicted by the learned court below only on the ground that he is the owner of one of the trucks and this fact could not have been challenged by the Petitioner No.1, as the Petitioner No.1 had claimed the truck and had got it released by a judicial order passed by the learned court below. The learned counsel further submitted that in absence of any finding regarding meeting of mind for the alleged commission of offence between the Petitioner No.1 and other co-accused, the Petitioner No.1 could not have been convicted under section 380 IPC with the aid of section 120B of IPC. He submitted that this aspect of the matter has been totally overlooked by the learned trial court while convicting the Petitioner No.1.

¶31

13. The learned counsel submitted that the learned lower appellate court considering the appeal of three persons namely, Mahendra Nath Singh, MD. Jainul and Raj Bahadur Sharma, decided the same by a common judgment dated 04.10.2010 (impugned) and has recorded a finding that there is direct and positive evidence showing physical presence of the appellants (which include Petitioner No.1) at the time of occurrence and commission of any overt act in this occurrence and all the witnesses have seen the occurrence. The learned counsel submitted that said finding which has been recorded by the learned lower appellate court, is ex-facie perverse, in as much as, there is no evidence on record to show any direct and positive evidence of physical presence of the Petitioner No.1 at the time and place of occurrence.

¶32

14. The learned counsel further submitted that the appeal was also filed by Raj Bahadur Sharma who was admittedly driver of one of the trucks, other than the truck of the Petitioner

¶33

¶34

No.1 and said Raj Bahadur Sharma, was charged under Section 411 read with Section 380 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted under section 380 IPC read with section 120B IPC; 380 IPC as well as under section 411 IPC. He submitted that the case of the Petitioner No.1 is totally different from the case of said Raj Bahadur Sharma, who, being the driver of another truck, was certainly present on the spot at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1 submitted that, the said finding of the learned lower appellate court may be correct, so far as Raj Bahadur Sharma is concerned, but is totally perverse when it is seen with respect to the Petitioner No.1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1 submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conviction of the Petitioner No.1 which has been upheld by holding that there is direct and positive evidence showing physical presence of the Petitioner No.1 by the learned lower appellate court vide the impugned appellate court’s judgment, is ex-facie perverse and calls for interference by this Court to meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel further submitted that even if it is admitted that the goods were seized from the truck which belongs to the Petitioner No.1, but admittedly, the petitioner was neither charged, nor convicted under Section 411 of IPC and therefore, the same cannot be used against the Petitioner No.1 to hold that the Petitioner No.1 is guilty under Sections 120-B/380 of IPC.

¶35

15. The learned counsel submitted that the learned trial court did not convict Bharat Singh, M.S. Rana, Chandrika Singh, Sheo Shankar Lal and Tarun Kumar Malviya and convicted out of 16 who were facing the trial before the learned court below. Oneco-accused namely, Ramchandra Prasad died during the pendency of trial and another co-accused namely Basudeo Singh was reported dead, but as the information was not

¶36

¶37

specific , his trial was separated vide order dated 5.02.2009 by the learned court below. Thus 11 accused were convicted.

¶38

The learned counsel submitted that co-accused Khursheed Parvez Siddiqui, Mulkraj Singh and K. Apta filed Cr. Appeal No. 104/2009 which was dismissed and accordingly, they filed Cr. Revision No. 1089 of 2010 which was allowed vide judgment dated 20.07.2011 and the case of Petitioner No.1 is on better footing. Thus out of 11 convicted persons, only 8 remained.

¶39

He has also referred to the judgment passed by the lower appellate court in Cr. Appeal No. 103/2009 by which the conviction and order of sentence recorded against Prasadi Paswan, Mani Rai, Ram Naresh Prasad, Rikdeo Sahu and Birbal Prasad has been set-aside. This judgment has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the records of Cr. Revision No. 1089 of 2010 which is available with the records of the present case. Thus, out of 8 convicted persons, only three remained who had originally preferred this criminal revision application. Out of the three petitioners, Petitioner No.2 has expired and the case of Petitioner No.3 has been dismissed for default. Petitioner No.3 was the driver of another truck with which the Petitioner No.1 has no concern whatsoever. Petitioner no.2 was the owner of another truck with whom also the Petitioner No.1 has no concern whatsoever. The learned counsel submitted that there is no allegation /material of any criminal conspiracy of the Petitioner No.1 with the owner/driver of other trucks and the only material against the Petitioner No.1 is that he was the owner of one of the trucks and the same was not enough to convict him under section 380 read with section 120B of IPC.

¶40

Arguments of the Opposite Party-CBI

¶41

16. The present criminal revision application was heard at length on 05.12.2019, when the aforesaid arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶42

¶43

Petitioner No.1 and the matter was posted today i.e. on 06.12.2019 to give an opportunity to the learned counsel for the opposite party-C.B.I. to go through the Lower Court’s Records to see as to whether there is any evidence in order to support the findings of the learned lower appellate court that there is direct and positive evidence showing physical presence of the Petitioner No.1 or not. Today, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party-C.B.I. has advanced his arguments and after going through the Lower Court’s Records, he has not been able to point out any evidence in support of the aforesaid finding which has been recorded by the learned lower appellate court. It is further not disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party-C.B.I. that the Petitioner No.1 has been convicted only on the ground that he is the owner of one of the trucks bearing No. BRY-5672, which was seized with the goods. The learned counsel for the opposite party-C.B.I. is also not in a position to dispute that the Petitioner No.1 was not present either at the premises of Bokaro Steel Plant Limited or at the place of occurrence or at the place of seizure. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner No.1 was neither charged, nor convicted under Section 411 or under Section 457 of IPC or under section 380 of IPC and the Petitioner No.1 has been convicted under Section 380 of IPC with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. It is also not in dispute that out of 16 persons who faced the trial, 13 persons have been acquitted either by the learned trial court or by the learned lower appellate court in different appeal or by this court in revisional jurisdiction, the details of which has been mentioned by the learned counsel for the Petitioner No.1 as mentioned above.

¶44

Findings of the Court

¶45

17. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record including the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the judgment passed by the

¶46

¶47

learned lower appellate court, this Court finds that admittedly, the case was instituted on the basis of information received by the informant that the goods of Bokaro Steel Plant Limited are being stolen with the connivance of the Management of BSL Plant and CISF Officials. This Court finds that the goods were seized from four different trucks and all the drivers of the trucks had run away from the spot. P.W.-2 was admittedly driver of one of the trucks which is not connected with the Petitioner No.1. P.W-2 was the approver. Another co-accused, namely, Raj Bahadur Sharma was also one of the drivers of the seized trucks and the truck which he was driving, is not the truck of the Petitioner No.1. It is further evident from the records that the Petitioner No.1 was not charged under Section 411 or under Section 457 of Indian Penal Code and the Petitioner No.1 was charged only under Section 380 read with Section 120-B of IPC. Independent charge was framed against the co-accused under section 380 of IPC, but not against the Petitioner No.1. There is no evidence on record alleging physical presence of the Petitioner No.1 at the place of occurrence i.e. in the premises of Bokaro Steel Plant or at the time of seizure of the truck. There is no allegation that the Petitioner No.1 was driving the truck himself. This court finds that even as per the evidence of P.W-2 (approver) there is no indication of the presence of the Petitioner No.1 at the place of occurrence. The learned trial court has recorded and considered the evidence of P.W-2 as under: -

¶48

“42. P.W.-2 Biranchi Rai is an approver witness whose statement has been recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C r/w 306 Cr.P.C has also been recorded by magistrate, after according him pardon on the request of CBI and he has deposed through his examination in chief that on he was the driver of Truck No. OSC-8916 which owner was Brij Kishor Singh (Now deceased) and as per direction of his owner on 4.3.93 in between 9 to 10 PM he had gone to Sector-9 along with his truck and accordingly he reached the muck-dump of BSL where he saw 2 to 3 other trucks also standing there. He has further deposed that thereafter slabs were loaded on all the trucks including his and the loaded slabs were near about equal in the length of the

¶49

¶50

body of the truck and thereafter, in addition to his truck, four other trucks came out from the muck dump and went towards Sector-9 through a road behind the local P.S. He has further deposed that out of said trucks once owner was Mr. M.N. Singh and once owner was Mr. Basudeo Singh and once owner was Jainul Mistry and once owner was Mr. B.K. Singh, out of which, one truck was being driven by this witness, one truck was being driven by driver Raj Bahadur Sharma and one truck was being driven by driver Ram Ch. Singh. He has further deposed that his truck was behind other trucks and the said trucks were surrounded by local people and they also made the tyres of all the trucks punctured. This witness has further deposed that thereafter he fled away leaving the truck at that place and went to his owner and disclosed the occurrence. He further deposed that thereafter his statement was recorded by CBI and police and also his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded on 15.12.1995 in the court and in all the statements he has supported the alleged occurrence. He has further admitted that subsequently he was made prosecution witness. He has further deposed that truck was seized on 4.3.93 where as he was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 15.12.95. During cross examination this witness has admitted that in connection with Harla P.S. Case No.-77/93, he was in jail for two months and Harla police had also recorded his statement during investigation. He has further deposed in the cross examination that I.O. Lakhi Prasad did not assault him during interrogation but used to supply him liquor. He has further deposed that what he has deposed the same is as per direction of CBI.

¶51

In view of aforesaid, it is crystal clear that this approver witness has not only supported his participation in the alleged occurrence but also he has substantiated and disclosed the whereabouts of the trucks involved, the identity of their owners and drivers, in addition to, shifting the seized slabs from muck dump of BSL to the place where the trucks were seized by the informant with the help of other villagers and police force. Here, I would say that in view of provision under Section 10 of Evidence Act vis-a-vis a decision cited on behalf of defence namely 1998 SCC (Cri) 936 referred above, testimony of an approver witness is not admissible to prove the part of other conspirators relating to conspiracy when the statement of approver was recorded after his arrest was the police or any other agency. Thus in view of this, of course, testimony of this witness cannot be used to prove the conspiracy or again other conspirators, but at least testimony of this witness substantiates the commission of offence under Section 380 and also offence under Section 411 I.P.C., i.e. alleged theft of slabs and recovery thereof from the relevant trucks and about the identity of the respective truck owners and respective drivers which stands further substantiated by the fact that as per case record each of the trucks, seized, were released in favour of their respective owners accused on their respective claim in the court. Further testimony of this PW-2

¶52

¶53

has not been challenged by the defence in so many terms nor has this witness been suggested that the identity of truck owners and drivers of the trucks in question disclosed by him were incorrect. Further in view of testimony of PW-1 Ram Pukar Singh the informant and the seizure list witness namely PW-3 and 4, it is also established that aforesaid trucks were seized during the relevant time loaded with steel slabs (loosely speaking) and as stated above, it has been established by the prosecution evidence adduced in the case that said seized slabs were property of BSL, Bokaro which further stands substantiated by Ext.-1 the seizure list, Ext.-2 the written report, and Ext.-4 the theft cum property report submitted by BSL and counter signed by CISF which contents have also been duly proved by its signatories who have appeared in the case as P.Ws and their testimonies have already been discussed hereinabove in detail. “

¶54

18. This Court finds that the learned lower appellate court has upheld the conviction of the Petitioner No.1 by holding that there is direct and positive evidence showing physical presence of the Petitioner No.1 at the time and commission of offence and commission of any overt act in the occurrence and all the witnesses have seen the occurrence and further conviction of the Petitioner No.1 has been upheld on the ground that the Petitioner No.1, being the truck owner, has not challenged any of the prosecution witnesses that their respective trucks were not seized by the informant during the relevant time loaded with steel slabs belonging to Bokaro Steel Plant Limited and that there is also positive evidence that they were all along with steel slabs reloaded on the said four trucks and that the drivers of the said trucks fled away from the spot. The findings have been recorded in Para-9 of the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court which is as follows:--

¶55

“9. There is direct and positive evidence showing physical presence of these appellants at the time of occurrence and commission of any overt act in this occurrence and all the witnesses have seen the occurrence. It is not disputed that the said trucks were seized with steel slabs and PW-8, S.M. Mohanti who was the custodian of the stolen slabs has also supported the testimony of PW-7, Shyam Sunder Sao and ext.4 and in addition, has identified the slabs seized to be of BSL. Therefore, the seized trucks are not disputed.

¶56

¶57

Consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, adduced by the prosecution, coupled with the circumstances, fully stated and described above, in addition to the fact that the trucks owners have not challenged any of the PWs that their respective trucks were not seized by the informant during the relevant time loaded with steel slabs belonging to the BSL and there is also positive evidence that they were all along present at the muck-dump where the unloaded steel slabs were reloaded on the four trucks and others and the driver of the said trucks thereafter fled away. It is clearly established that the slabs belonging to the BSL, Bokaro. The same were seized from four trucks described in the seizure list and date and time and the appellants are the owners of the trucks. From the above discussed fact and circumstances, it is clear that Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the truck and Raj Bahadur Sharma is the driver of the said seized truck, are directly involved in this occurrence because the truck seized with loaded stolen steel slabs of BSL. Therefore, ld. court below rightly passed the order and judgment and of conviction and sentence and I, therefore see no any illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein.”

¶58

19. Ample opportunity has been given to the learned counsel for the opposite party-C.B.I. to examine as to whether there is any iota of evidence to show the presence of the Petitioner No.1 at the place of occurrence either in the premises of BSL or at the time of seizure or at the time of loading/unloading of the truck to show the complicity of the Petitioner No.1 in the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the opposite party-C.B.I. has not been able to show any such evidence. Further there is no evidence against Petitioner No.1 to show his presence at the time and place of occurrence and no overt act has been alleged against the Petitioner No.1 in order to convict him under Section 380 read with Section 120B of IPC. There is no evidence against the Petitioner No.1 to show any meeting of mind with any of the co-accused for commission of the alleged offence under any criminal conspiracy so as to convict the Petitioner No.1 under Section 380 read with Section 120B of IPC. So far as the recovery of the seized articles is concerned, admittedly, the Petitioner No.1 has not been made accused under Section 411 of IPC and accordingly, the recovery of the article from the truck of the Petitioner No.1 cannot be made the basis to convict the

¶59

¶60

Petitioner No.1 under Sections 380 read with Section 120-B of IPC. This court finds that except the three petitioners in the present case, where Petitioner No.2 is the owner of one of the trucks, Petitioner No.3 is the driver of one of the trucks, with which Petitioner No.1 has nothing to do, all the other persons, who were employees of the Bokaro Steel Plant and the personnel of CISF have been acquitted. Even the P.W-2, who was an approver and driver of one of the trucks, has not made any allegation, much less, any allegation of criminal conspiracy against the Petitioner No.1.

¶61

20. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court finds that the conviction of the Petitioner No.1 by the learned trial court is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, the finding which has been recorded by the learned lower appellate court while upholding the conviction of the Petitioner No.1, is ex-facie perverse and it also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. This Court finds that if the impugned judgment upholding the conviction of the Petitioner No.1 is not set-aside, then the same would defeat the ends of justice.

¶62

21. Accordingly, in exercise of revisional power, the judgment dated 04.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 106 of 2009, so far the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, as well as the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against the Petitioner No.1 by the learned S.D.J.M.-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dhanbad in R.C.5(S) /1994 corresponding to T.R. No. 1084 of 2009 is hereby set-aside and the present Cr. Revision No. 62 of 2011, is hereby allowed to the extent it relates to the Petitioner No.1 only .

¶63

22. The bailers of the Petitioner No.1 are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

¶64

¶65

23. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.

¶66

24. Let the records be immediately sent back to the learned trial court.

¶67

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶68

Mukul

Mahendra Nath Singh And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Nath Singh And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

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

M/S P.R.Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India And Anr.

Urmila Sinha Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Jai Ram Singh Alias Jaipal Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance Department

Harjit Singh Arora Alias H S Arora Vs Union Of India Through C B I

MD Alam Vs Tata Steel Ltd. through Its Director Department of Land

Harbhajan Singh Dhillon Alias H S Dhillon Vs Union Of India Through C B I