Amin Singh Alias Jogeshwar Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC29 Sept 2021Cr.Rev./85/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two criminal revision petitions challenging convictions for cheating, fraud, and Forgery. The Court found no perversity in the evidence but, considering the long pendency and petitioners' advanced age, reduced their sentences to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Sentences reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each with a total fine of Rs. 10,000/- each to be deposited within three months.

Amin Singh Alias Jogeshwar Yadav and Ors. Vs the… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 848 of 2012

¶3

Nageshwar Singh @ Naga Singh @ Mohan Singh son of Baleshwar Singh, resident of Singhora, P.O. and P.S.- Koach, District-Gaya (Bihar)

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand represented through C.B.I.

¶7

… … Opp. Party

¶8

With Cr. Revision No. 85 of 2013

¶9

Amin Singh @ Jogeshwar Yadav, son of Late Bhutai Singh, Resident of Parsurampur, P.O.- Herdechak, P.S.- Kaler, District- Arwal, Bihar

¶10

Jogeshwar Rajwar @ Dinesh Yadav @ Jageshwar Rajwar, son of Sri Deoraj Rajwar, Resident of Rampurkoni, P.O.- Belrai, P.S.- Mehedia, District-Arwal, Bihar

¶11

Prasadi Rajwar @ Rambachan Yadav, son of Late Jhapsi Rajwar, Resident of Balora, P.O.- Uphara, P.S.- Karpi, District- Arwal, Bihar

¶12

Lalbehari Gope @ Chandeshwar Yadav, son of Late Baldeo Gope, Resident of Mianpur, P.O. & P.S.- Uphara, DistrictAurangabad, Bihar … … Petitioners

¶13

-Versus-

¶14

State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

¶16

Through: Video Conferencing

¶17

12 /29.09.2021

¶18

1. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 848/2012.

¶19

2. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 85/2013.

¶20

3. Heard Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-C.B.I. in both the cases.

¶21

¶22

4. The present criminal revision applications arise out of Cr. Appeal No. 251/2010 and Cr. Appeal No. 249/2010 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad on 14.02.2012 whereby and whereunder the criminal appeals filed by the concerned petitioners have been dismissed. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced vide order dated 01.10.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 22(A)/1989. Cr. Appeal No. 251/2010 was filed by the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 848/2012 and Cr. Appeal No. 249/2010 was filed by the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 85/2013.

¶23

5. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 848/2012 for offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶24

6. The learned trial court convicted the petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 85/2013 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶25

¶26

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

¶27

7. Learned counsels for the petitioners have argued the cases at length. They have specifically argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners were not the same persons, in whose name they had taken the appointment. They have submitted that it was for the prosecution to prove the case that the petitioners had impersonated. Learned counsels have also submitted that the learned appellate court has not considered the defence evidences i.e. Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B and has simply recorded that defence has produced those evidences as Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B. They have submitted that the documents produced by the defence were considered by the learned trial court, but the same was incorrectly rejected. The learned counsels have submitted that rent receipt was produced in connection with some of the have also submitted that no petitioners. They material/documents were exhibited before the learned court below which are related to the period 1971 to 1975 and accordingly, there is no evidence on record from the side of the prosecution as to who were the actual persons working in the colliery in the year 1971. The learned counsels have also submitted that the persons, who were said to have been impersonated, have also not come before the learned court below to depose that they have been cheated and that the present petitioners have taken appointment in their names. Learned counsels have also submitted that in connection with one of the petitioners namely, Chandeshwar Yadav, his photo was identified as the photo of Chandeshwar Yadav only in Form–B, although the name of the person recorded in Form–B was Lal Behari Gope.

¶28

8. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners have also submitted that the petitioners have faced

¶29

¶30

the rigors of the criminal case for a long time right from the year 1989 onwards and on the date of conviction i.e. on 01.10.2010, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 848/2012 was 55 years of age and the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in Cr. Revision No. 85/2013 were 52, 49, 51 and 59 years of age respectively and accordingly, considering the present age of the petitioners, some sympathetic view may be taken. The learned counsels have also submitted that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent and they have remained in custody for some time during trial as well as during the pendency of the present criminal revision petitions and accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners may be confined to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody. They have also submitted that if some fine amount is imposed, that would serve the ends of justice.

¶31

Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

¶32

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the petitioners had impersonated the real persons and had taken appointment in the name of other persons and it is immaterial as to whether the other persons have appeared as witness before the learned court below or not. He has also submitted that co-villagers of the petitioners have also deposed before the learned court below and it was for the petitioners to prove their names and identity before the learned court below which they have failed to prove.

¶33

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I. has opposed the prayer of the petitioner not only on the merits of the case, but also on the point of modification of sentence. He submitted that the present case is a case of impersonation by the petitioners, who had taken services in B.C.C.L., a

¶34

¶35

Government Company and have caused loss to their exchequers by commission of the offences. He submitted that in case of impersonation, no sympathetic view may be taken. He has also submitted that the learned trial court has already considered the long-drawn trial and has already taken a lenient view by giving sentence upto two years and six months, although as per the provision, the maximum sentence prescribed is seven years. The learned counsel has further submitted that neither the conviction of the petitioners, nor the sentence calls for any interference by this Court.

¶36

Findings of this Court

¶37

11. The prosecution case in short is that, on the basis of source information, the accused persons impersonated six genuine workers who were employed in BCCL as Badli Miner Loader and joined BCCL in conspiracy with B.N. Jha, who was then posted and functioning as Personal Manager, Kusunda Area in BCCL, Dhanbad. It was further alleged that these persons namely, Amin Singh, Mohan Singh, Darshu Singh, Jogeshwar Rajwar, Prasadi Rajwar and Lal Behari Gope were working as Miner loaders in Dhansar Colliery, Kusunda Area, BCCL and the said six persons remained employed in the Colliery till 1975 and thereafter, those six persons were reported to be absent till 1979. It was further alleged that the accused persons appeared in 1979 impersonating themselves as six genuine persons as stated above. It was also alleged that the impersonators appeared before B.N. Jha and put their claims for the job of Badli Miner Loader on the basis of fake certificate and then note-sheet was moved and B.N. Jha, the then Personal Manager recommended to reinstate those impostors as Badli Miner Loader and the same was approved by Manchanda, General Manager, Area No.6 BCCL vide office order dated 13/17.07.01. According to office order, the accused persons

¶38

¶39

were posted at Khas Kusunda and Godhar Colliery at Area No.6, since there was no vacancy in those two collieries and the accused persons applied for transfer and B.N. Jha issued a no objection certificate and subsequently, the transfer order was issued from BCCL, Headquarter and the accused persons were transferred to Loyabad colliery where they were working. The photographs of the persons originally appointed at Dhansar Colliery and the details of the present petitioners were alleged to be totally different as compared to those in the colliery records and the office order appertaining to resumption of duty of the petitioners. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, a case under Sections 120B/499/420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act was registered against the petitioners. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and cognizance was taken under the same sections. Charges were framed against the petitioners and the substance of the accusation were explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. Before the learned trial court, altogether 28 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-1 is Manohar Kumar Singh, P.W.-2 is Ramswarup Yadav, P.W.-3 is Ram Iqbal Yadav, P.W. -4 is Baleshwar Prajapati, P.W.-5 is Yogeshwar Rajwar, P.W.-6 is Surendra Narayan Singh, P.W.- 7 is Rakhohari Sinha, P.W.- 8 is Purushottam Kumar Jha, P.W.-9 is Shanker Dayal Singh, P.W.-10 is Sudharshan Pandit, P.W.-11 is Sachidanand Singh, P.W.-12 is B.R. Tripathi, P.W.-13 is Laldeo Ram, P.W.-14 is Satyanarayan Singh, P.W.-15 is Rajeshwar Singh, P.W.-16 is Bijay Narayan Sharma, P.W.-17 is Ram Chandra Ram, P.W.-18 is Shyamapado Rajwar, P.W.-19 is Shyama Prasad Sarkar, P.W. 20 is Nand Kishore Prasad, P.W.21 is Nilmani Prasad Singh, P.W.-22 is Chandradeo Mochi, P.W.-23 is Umeshwar Prasad Singh, P.W.-24 is Mulashi Yadav,

¶40

¶41

P.W.-25 is Satish Kumar Bakhtiyar, P.W.-26 is Binod Kumar, P.W.-27 is Bal Krishna Birdi and P.W.-28 is Mohan Singh Parikshit.

¶42

13. The defence also examined one witness namely, Mahabir Prasad as DW-1.

¶43

14. All the four petitioners in Cr. Rev. No. 85 of 2013 surrendered before the learned trial court on 09.01.2013 and they were granted bail by this Court on 21.03.2013. The petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 848 of 2012 surrendered on 17.12.2012 before the learned trial court and he was granted bail by this Court on 24.01.2013.

¶44

15. Upon perusal of the records of both the cases, this Court finds that a large number of documentary evidences were exhibited before the learned court below, which included Exhibit-1 proved by P.W.-1, who has referred to certain pages of Exhibit-1 indicating that the names of Amin Singh and Jagdish Singh were mentioned in the register and their age column was blank. It was recorded that they were appointed on 23.08.1975 and were residents of Bhagabandh, O.P. Pathardih, District Dhanbad within the then State of Bihar. It was further recorded that neither the signature of Amin Singh, nor his thumb impression was appearing in the record and his name was struck off from the register as back as on 28.08.1976.

¶45

16. So far as Mohan Singh is concerned, his father’s name was mentioned in the register as Ram Singh and his address was mentioned as Village-Goradih, Thana Bengabad, P.O.Khurchura, District Hazaribagh, the then district under the State of Bihar to whom identity card was also issued and his photograph was also available and his thumb impression was also available in the remarks column. It was also mentioned that his name was struck off on 28.08.1976.

¶46

¶47

17. So far as Jogeshwar Rajwar is concerned, his name also figured in the register and his father’s name was mentioned as Aklu Rajwar, identify card was issued on 10.11.1975 showing his address as Village- Manjhder, P.S.- Rajauli, P.O.- Nagima, District- Gaya and his photograph was also available and his thumb impression was also there in the remarks column. It was mentioned that his name was struck off on 28.08.1976.

¶48

18. So far as Prasadi Rajwar is concerned, his name was also mentioned in the register and his father’s name was shown as Bajo Rajwar and was shown to be resident of Village- Ratoi, Thana- Govindpur, District- Gaya and identify card was issued to him on 17.09.1975 and his photograph and thumb impression were also available and in the remarks column, the page was found torn.

¶49

19. In Form-B register (Exhibit-2), the father’s name of Mohan Singh was mentioned as Baleshwar Singh, the father’s name of Amin Singh was mentioned as Sri Butai Singh, the father’s name of Jogeshwar Rajwar was mentioned as Sri Devraj Rajwar and the father’s name of Prasadi Rajwar was mentioned as Late Jhapsi Rajwar, but in Exhibit-1, the names of the fathers of the aforesaid petitioners were differently mentioned and there were also certain mismatch in connection with the addresses of some of the petitioners.

¶50

20. In reference to Exhibit-1 which has been mentioned in the impugned judgment, it appears that there were documents exhibited before the learned court below relating to the period 1975 as well. Accordingly, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence on record from the side of the prosecution as to who were the persons working in the colliery in the year 1971, has got no relevance in view of the fact that Exhibit-1 is the document which indicates the persons who were working in the colliery in the year 1975 and out of the

¶51

¶52

five petitioners in the present cases, the names of four of them were mentioned in Exhibit-1 and out of four of them, the names of Mohan Singh, Jageshwar Rajwar and Amin Singh were also struck off from the register. So far as Prasadi Rajwar is concerned, the relevant page was torn, but his father’s name was mentioned as Bajo Rajwar, although the father’s name of the person who had impersonated Prasadi Rajwar has been reflected as Late Jhapsi Rajwar.

¶53

21. So far as Lalbehari Gope is concerned, his name has not been exhibited in Exhibit-1, but the fact remains that in Form-B, his name was mentioned as Lal Bihari Gope and not as Chandeshwar Yadav, although it had come in evidence that the photograph was that of Chandeshwar Yadav and at the same time, P.W.-2 in his evidence, though has stated that the photograph was that of Chandeshwar Yadav, none of the accused persons present in the court was Chandeshwar Yadav. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that one of the persons present in the court was Lalbehari Gope and he was not Chandeshwar Yadav. The photograph of Chandeshwar Yadav was exhibited as Exhibit-4. The learned counsels for the petitioners have heavily relied upon the evidence of P.W.-2.

¶54

22. This Court has also gone through the evidence of P.W.-2, who has not stated anywhere that the photograph which was there in Form-B was that of any of the persons, who were present before the court below and certainly there was a mismatch in connection with the photograph of Chandeshwar Yadav which was said to be the person in Form-B. This is over and above the fact that there are large number of evidences on record, both documentary and oral, which have been considered by the learned court below.

¶55

23. Apart from the aforesaid argument in connection with evidence of P.W.-2 and the identity of the Petitioner No.4, no

¶56

¶57

other argument with regard to the offence for which the petitioners have been convicted has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶58

24. So far as exhibits adduced from the side of the defence are concerned i.e. Exhibits- A and B, this Court finds that those exhibits have been fully considered by the learned trial court and have been rejected interalia on the ground that the exhibited documents from the side of Amin Singh, Mohan Singh and Jageshwar Rajwar did not indicate any date of their issuance and their photographs were also not affixed at the appropriate places and the signature of the authority who had issued those documents was also not clear. The documents of Mohan Singh and Jogeshwar Rajwar was partly torn and partly illegible. The learned trial court has also considered that the defence had produced the exhibits after a long delay and no crossexamination of the witnesses were done in those lines on which the defence exhibits were produced.

¶59

25. This Court finds that the learned trial court has scrutinized the materials on record and has considered all the documentary and oral evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and has accordingly convicted the petitioners. 26. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court has also considered all the evidences on record and has also considered the fact that various signatures and thumb impressions of the petitioners were taken and exhibited which were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI for expert report and the report and other documents were exhibited before the learned court below. The learned appellate court also considered that the petitioners could not produce any details regarding the identity of themselves and they had impersonated themselves in place of genuine persons. The learned appellate court also scrutinized the evidences on record

¶60

¶61

and upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.

¶62

27. This Court finds that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences on record and to come to a different finding. The learned counsels for the petitioners could not point out any perversity, as such, in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. After going through the judgments passed by the learned courts below, this Court finds that the judgments are well considered judgments and the same do not call for any interference by this Court.

¶63

28. So far as sentence is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioners have faced the rigours of the criminal case right from the year 1989 and the matters remained pending before this Court for a considerable period and at this time, the petitioners are also of advanced age and neither any criminal antecedents of the petitioners have been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. nor any criminal antecedent is reflecting from the impugned orders under consideration. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of petitioners is modified to some extent. Accordingly, the sentences of each of the petitioners are modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with total fine of Rs. 10,000/- each to be deposited within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to the learned court below. On account of non-deposit of amount within the stipulated time period, the petitioners would serve the sentences as imposed by the learned court below.

¶64

29. Accordingly, both the present criminal revision petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence.

¶65

30. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are cancelled.

¶66

¶67

31. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶68

32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶69

33. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the learned court below.

¶70

34. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

¶71

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶72

Mukul

Amin Singh Alias Jogeshwar Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amin Singh Alias Jogeshwar Yadav and Ors. v. the 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

Ganesh Napit Vs State of Jharkhand

Budheswar Das Vs State of Jharkhand

Irin Parvin Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Nageshwar Singh Alias Naga Singh Alias Mohan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand Represented through CBI

Jai Narayan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Chudka Soren Alias Churka Soren Vs State of Jharkhand