A sub-postmaster challenged convictions for misappropriation, cheating and forgery involving postal deposits. The court held prosecution sanction unnecessary and found no prejudice from non-examination of the investigating officer. It dismissed the revision, declined sentence reduction and cancelled bail bonds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 988 of 2013
Hasib Ansari S/o Late Fakhruddin Ansari, R/o VillageMurma, P.O. and P.S. Mandar, District- Ranchi
State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Hatim, A.P.P. ---
Through Video Conferencing
C.A.V. On 05.07.2021 Pronounced on 27/09/2021
1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.
3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgement dated 31.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2009 affirming the judgement and order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 3021/1998 arisen out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 74/1998.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate has convicted the petitioner under Sections 409/34, 420/34, 467/34 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment for the offence -
under Section 409/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of one month;
2
under Section 420/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment of one month;
under Section 467/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional Simple Imprisonment of one month; and,
under Section 471/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional Simple Imprisonment of one month.
It was further directed by the learned trial court that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside of both the judgement and order dated 31.08.2013 and 27.08.2009 as aforesaid.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgments are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law on account of the fact that the requisite sanction for prosecution has not been obtained in the present case and the entire acts and omissions of the present petitioner was in discharge of official duty. On this proposition, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court reported in 1997 Supreme (All) 1136 and also the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati reported in 2018 Supreme (Gau.) 22 . The learned counsel has further submitted that otherwise also the impugned judgments of conviction are not sustainable in view of the fact that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. For this, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in a case reported in 2016 Supreme (Jhk) 150 as well as the judgment reported in 2018 4 JBCJ 29 . The learned counsel further submits that so far as the seizure witnesses are concerned, they have not fully supported the prosecution case, in as much as, they have
3
stated that their signatures were taken at the police station. However, he does not dispute the fact that these seizure witnesses have not disputed their signatures on the seizure list. The learned counsel submits that considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the conviction as well as the sentence of the petitioner is fit to be set-aside.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions on merit, it may also be taken into consideration that the case was lodged as back as in the year 1998 and the petitioner has faced the rigors of criminal case for more than 23 years and the present age of the petitioner is approximately 50 years and he does not have any criminal antecedent. He submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a total period of about 6 months including custody during trial and at the stage of revision. He has also submitted that there is no minimum sentence, as such, prescribed under the provisions of sections under which the petitioner has been convicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence may be modified and some fine amount may be imposed.
Arguments on behalf of the opposite party- State
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and the acts and omissions of the petitioner cannot be said in discharge of official duty. He has also submitted that the petitioner had collected money for issuance of NSC etc. although the post office in which he was posted was not authorized to do so. The learned counsel has also submitted that although the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined, but the petitioner has not been prejudiced by the
4
same. He has also submitted that from perusal of the ordersheet of the learned court below, it appears that appropriate steps were taken for recording the evidence of Investigating Officer, but ultimately in the year 2007, it was recorded that the Investigating Officer has already retired and he ultimately did not depose before the learned trial court. He has also submitted that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences at a revisional stage and considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction and there being no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments, no interference is called for by this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State further submitted that so far as modification of the sentence is concerned, he does not have any serious objection and it is for the Court to consider and pass appropriate order.
Findings of this Court
9. Prosecution case is based on the written report of one Rajender Prasad, Sub Divisional Inspector (postal) Lohardaga Sub Division, Lohardaga. As per the written report, the petitioner was working as Sub Postmaster, Tangar since 01.08.1994. The irregularities committed by him were examined by the informant. It came to light in the inquiry that the petitioner issued receipts dated 09.12.1998 and 10.12.1998 for deposit of money to Gopal Prasad Sahu and Mangra Oraon. It has been stated to the informant that an amount of Rs. 1,000/was given to the co-accused Deep Narayan Singh who gave the money to Hasib Ansari, the petitioner. Deep Narayan Singh was working as postal messenger and he was also put off from duty during inquiry. It has been alleged that the petitioner had taken money from both the persons for issuance of Kishan Vikash Patra and National Saving Certificates though they could not have been issued by Tangar Sub Post-Office. It was further alleged that Hasib Ansari (petitioner) had fraudulently withdrawn money from savings banks and term deposit from
5
different accounts as detailed in the written report. It has been alleged that despite the best efforts, the accused Hasib Ansari (petitioner) did not appear before the Inquiry Officer and accordingly, the First Information Report in the instant case was lodged under Sections 467, 468, 471/420, 409 of Indian Penal Code being Chanho P.S. Case No. 74 of 1998.
10. After investigation, charge -sheet was submitted. The learned judicial Magistrate ultimately framed charge for the offence under Sections 409/34, 420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and one Deep Narayan Singh. 11. Altogether, fourteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 is Gopal Prasad Sahu, P.W. 2 is Siriya Bhaktain, P.W. 3 is Jitu Oraon, P.W. 4 is Sukro Mahali, P.W. 5 is Shanti Toppo , P.W. 6 is Sukra Kujur, P.W. 7 is Radha Kumari, P.W. 8 is Dehari Oraoin, P.W 9 is Mangra Oraoin, P.W. 10 is Manohar Lal, P.W. 11 is Shyam Bihari Mishra, P.W. 12 is Bishwanath Sahi, P.W. 13 is Rajinder Prasad – informant of the case and P.W. 14 is Charan Mandi.
12. A large number of documentary evidences were also produced from the side of the prosecution. Exhibit 1 and 2 are the receipts given by Hasib Ansari, Exhibit 3 is the letter given to the Sub-Post-Inspector by one of the victim, Exhibit 4 series are the signatures upon the seizure list, Exhibit 5 to 5/1 are the written report along with annexures and signature thereupon, the other annexures have been marked as Exhibit- 6 series. The other written complaint along with annexures and signature thereupon have been marked as Exhibit 7 series, the other annexures were marked as Exhibit 8 series, withdrawal slip dated 01.03.1996 from account No. 1307767 as Exhibit 9, and the passbook of the account as Exhibit 10, pass book of account No. 1308583 belonging to Shanti Toppo as Exhibit 11, and the receipt thereof as Exhibit 12, pass book of account no. 1309528
6
as Exhibit 13, the withdrawal form of Rs. 10,000/- as Exhibit 14 and the receipt thereof as Exhibit- 15, pass book of account No. 1308932 as Exhibit 16, pass book to account No. 6266220 as Exhibit 17, the receipt of Rs. 3000/- given to Jitu Oraon as Exhibit- 18, pass book of account No. 2918046 belonging to Jitu Oraon as Exhibit 19, and the deposit slip as Exhibit 20, the ledger account of Jitu Oraon as Exhibit 21, the document relating to deposit of Rs. 100/- in account of Radha Kumari as Exhibit 22, account ledger regarding account relating to Sukro Mahli, Shanti Toppo, Jitu Oraon, Dehari Oraoin and Sukuro Oraoin as Exhibit 23/1 to Exhibit 23/6, specimen book as Exhibit 24 and the specimen signatures relating to accounts as stated from Exhibit 23/1 to 23/6 as Exhibit 24/1 to Exhibit 24/5 and 25/1, pass book of account No. 1309127 as Exhibit 26, withdrawal form of Rs. 14,000/- as Exhibit 27, pass book of account No. 1307778 as Exhibit 28 and withdrawal form of Rs. 1000/- as Exhibit- 29, the passbook of Manohar Lal as Exhibit 30, Zimmanama and signature thereupon in Exhibit 31 series.
13. After the prosecution evidence, Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner denied the allegations levelled against him.
14. The petitioner was 38 years of age at the time of conviction on 27.08.2009 and accordingly, at present he is more than 50 years of age. The petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below on 19.11.2013 and he was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2013 passed in the present revision application.
15. It is not in dispute in the present case that the petitioner was working as sub post-master at Tangar during the relevant point of time.
16. The victims of the case have been examined as P.W-1 to P.W-10. They have fully supported the prosecution case and have stated as under:-
7
8
stated that the KVP of Rs. 30000/-was never handed over to him which was to mature on 21.08.1997 to Rs. 60,000/-.
17. Thus, altogether ten victims have been examined in the present case. It has come in evidence that the Tangar sub postoffice was not authorized to issue KVP certificate, but the evidence of these victims indicates, inter alia , that money was taken by the accused persons for the purposes of issuance of KVP, but the same were neither issued nor could have been issued as the branch was not authorized to issue such certificates. Some of the victims have also supported the case of fraudulent entries in the ledger and fraudulent withdrawals from their accounts.
18. P.W. 11 and 12 are the seizure witnesses and their signatures have been marked as exhibit 4 and 4/1. These witnesses have stated that 10 to 11 pass books, deposit slips and
9
withdrawal slips were recovered and that, the defalcation was done by the two accused persons. These witnesses have taken the name of the petitioner.
19. P.W. 13 is the informant of the case who had conducted the inspection and found that the accused persons had taken money from the account holders and had made wrong entry in their account. He has exhibited number of documents before the court below. He has also stated that the villagers had complained about their grievance before him and thereafter, he filed the case. This witness has also stated that he had lodged two First Information Reports; one was dated 15.12.1998 and other was dated 05.01.1999 in two different police stations i.e. in Mandar P.S. and Chanho P.S. respectively and both the First Information Reports have been proved before the learned court below and exhibited as Exhibits 5, 5/1, 7 and 7/1. The annexures to the First Information Reports were marked as Exhibit 8 and 8/1. This prosecution witness has fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated that the petitioner had taken Rs. 1000/- from Gopal Prasad Sahu, Rs. 2500/- from Mangra Oraoin for issuance of KVP and NSC though the branch was not authorized to issue such certificates. It was also found that Rs. 11,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn from the saving bank account opened in the name of Smt. Sukru Mahali. The amount was withdrawn from account, but it was not entered into the pass book. This witness has also given details of the fraudulent withdrawals by the accused persons from several accounts and has stated that a total amount of Rs. 7,75,000/- was defalcated by the accused persons. This witness has also given the details of the information lodged on 05.01.1999 in which details of other fraudulent withdrawals were given by him. He has stated that before posting of the petitioner and the co-accused in the branch, he was posted as Branch Manager by way of officiating arrangement and after joining of the present petitioner, the co-
10
accused Deep Narayan Singh started working as departmental delivery agent. He has also stated in his cross-examination that after getting the more irregularities, the second First Information Report was lodged, but for both the First Information Reports only one criminal case was pending. P.W. 14 has stated that the seized articles were released in his favour at his Zimmanama . A large number of documentary evidences were produced and exhibited before the learned court below whose details have been mentioned in paragraph 7 of the appellate court’s judgement, which also includes written complaints and the various documentary evidences produced in support of the allegations made by the victims and the informant of the case.
20. The sole defence witness on behalf of the present petitioner has brought on record Exhibit A whereby he has taken a stand that the co-accused Deep Narayan Singh had confessed his guilty regarding irregularity in the post-office. However, this witness could not testify that the Exhibit-A was written before him or that the same was voluntarily ascribed by the co-accused Deep Narayan Singh and was not written under duress and coercion. However, when the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., both of them i.e. the petitioner as well as Deep Narayan Singh, denied the allegations against them.
21. After considering the materials on record, the learned trial court convicted the accused for offence under Section 409/34, 420/34, 467/34 and 471 /34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly.
22. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and affirmed the conviction as well as the sentence and refused to interfere with the sentence considering the fact that poor depositors have been cheated by the public servants.
11
23. Altogether 14 witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution and out of them, P.W.1 to P.W.10 were the victims. Some of the victims have, inter alia, exhibited the money receipts issued by the present petitioner and other documentary evidences as mentioned above and have fully supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 7 Radha Kumari has exhibited money receipt as Ext.1. P.W.9 Mangra Oraoin has exhibited the money receipt as Ext.2. Some of the withdrawal forms in connection with the victims, some of the pass books in connection with the victims and specimen book and specimen signature were also exhibited. The case of the prosecution is supported by oral as well as documentary evidences. The informant of the case who had conducted the enquiry in the post office has also fully supported the prosecution case and has exhibited the records of the post office. It has clearly come in evidence that the concerned post office was not entitled to issue KVP and NSC though money was also collected for such purpose by the accused persons apart from other acts and omissions leading to commission of the alleged offences.
24. The learned trial court considered the oral and documentary evidences on record adduced from the side of the prosecution as well as defence. The learned trial court recorded that the accused persons including the petitioner had interpolated the withdrawal form, deposit form, pass book and also other documents concerning deposit and withdrawal of the amount in the post office. It further recorded that accused persons had also made cuttings and overwriting in some of the documents and even the dates were not mentioned. From the prosecution evidences, it was proved that in the name of issuance of Kishan Vikash Patra and National Saving Certificate, the accused persons had taken money and also given receipts pursuant to the money taken by them, although, the concerned Tangar Post Office was not authorized to issue
12
Kishan Vikash Patra and National Saving Certificate. The learned trial court also recorded that during the course of examination of the account holders, they had deposed regarding giving money to the accused persons and issuance of some documents by them. With this background, the learned trial court was of the considered view that the present petitioner along with co-accused Deep Narayan Singh, connived with each other and committed the alleged offence against the account holders and others and convicted the petitioner and the co-accused Deep Narayan Singh for offence under Section 409/34, 420/34, 467/34/ and 471/34 of Indian Penal Code.
25. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner before this court is that the requisite sanction for prosecution was not available and the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the entire acts and omissions of the petitioner was in discharge of his official duty. The other argument is that the investing officer of the case having not been examined, has caused prejudice to the petitioner and on this count also, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner cannot be sustained. For these arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a number of judgements as mentioned above.
On the point of non-examination of the investigating officer of the case
26. So far as the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2016 2 JLJR 558 (Babaji Vs. State of Jharkhand) is concerned, the said judgment was passed in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and this judgment has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that nonexamination of Investigating Officer of the case weakens the prosecution case. This Court finds that in the present case, the victims have been examined, who have fully supported the
13
prosecution case and the allegation against the petitioner is supported by documentary evidences, which have been seized from the official records of the concerned Post Office as well as produced and exhibited from the side of the prosecution. This Court also finds that sufficient steps were taken for the purposes of examination of the Investigating Officer of the case, but he could not be produced for the purposes of his examination before the learned trial court as is apparent from the records of this case and also submitted by the learned counsel for the state. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not demonstrated before this Court as to how non-examination of the Investigating Officer of the case has prejudiced the petitioner. Rather, this Court is of the considered view that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer of the case has not prejudiced the petitioner in any manner whatsoever as the case against the petitioner is by and large based on the evidences of the victims, official witnesses and documentary evidences on record. Accordingly, the said judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon another judgment passed by this High Court reported in 2018 ( 4) JBCJ 29 (Kandu Murmu @ Khandu Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand) and has referred to para 5 thereof and has submitted that on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the Criminal Appeal D.B. No.823 of 2010 was allowed. This Court finds that the said judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner. In the said case, the examination of the Investigating Officer of the case was essentially required with regard to what was narrated by the prosecution witnesses about the place of occurrence and blood stain etc. and non-examination of the Investigating Officer was held to be fatal to the prosecution case. This Court finds that the
14
said judgment also does not help the petitioner in any manner in view of the fact that the material evidences, both oral and documentary, to prove the offence, were duly brought on record by the prosecution witnesses including the victims before the learned court below and accordingly no prejudice has been caused on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer of the case.
On the point of absence of sanction for prosecution
28. So far as the sanction for prosecution is concerned, this Court finds that the point regarding absence of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner was never taken before the learned courts below. 29. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon another judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati reported in 2018 0 Supreme (Gau) 22 (Sri Rupak Choudhury Vs. Smti Jaimati Deka) to submit that the petitioner being a government servant, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law on account of absence of sanction for prosecution. In the said case, the witnesses had stated that the accused had misappropriated certain amount, but there was no proof that the amount was deposited by the witnesses and in such circumstances, it was held that it cannot be said that the accused had received the amount. The Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati was of the view that if the accused received the amount as alleged by the prosecution witnesses and did not enter into the relevant records of the post office, the same amounts to failure to discharge of her necessary duty as public servant resulting in misappropriation of the aforesaid amount and in this background, the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati was of the view that the alleged act committed by the accused was reasonably linked with her official responsibilities and sanction was considered to be necessary. The said case was filed against the judgment of acquittal. In the aforesaid
15
background, the High Court of Gauhati sustained the order of acquittal not only on merits, but also on account of absence of sanction for prosecution.
30. The other judgement relied upon by the petitioner is judgment reported in 1997 0 Supreme (All) 1136 ( State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Amin Beg ) whereby again the judgment of acquittal was under challenge. In the said case also, arguments were advanced that there was no prosecution sanction. There were omissions in making entries in the postal ledger and an inference was sought to be drawn that the amount was misappropriated by the accused, but when and how the said mis-appropriation was made, was not clear from the records of the case and in the post office, and neither the investigating officer of the case nor the Post Master was examined as a witness. In the said case considering the facts of the matter, it was found that there was direct connection between the act of receiving money and of account for the same in the postal ledger in discharge of official duty by the accused. In the facts of the case, it was held that the sanction of the competent authority for prosecution of the accused was necessary and accordingly, the judgment of acquittal was sustained. This Court finds that so far as principle of law is concerned, the said judgment clearly laid down that there must be reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of the official duty and the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim that he did the act in course of performance of his official duty. The judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of “Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. and others” reported in AIR 1997 SC 2102 was also considered but in the facts of the case it was held that the sanction for prosecution was required and the judgement of acquittal was sustained.
16
31. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 2102 (Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. and others) , the complaint was dismissed on account of absence of sanction and the said order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint was upheld by the High Court and was the subject-matter of consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In the aforesaid background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of requirement of sanction under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. and held that the essential requirement postulated for sanction to prosecute the public servant is that the offence alleged against the public servant must have been done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and it postulates that the public servant’s act should be in furtherance of his performance of his official duties. If the act/omission is integral to performance of public duty, the public servant is entitled to the protection under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. It has also been held that the protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his public duty honestly and to the best of his ability and the performance of public duty under the colour of public duty cannot be camouflaged to commit crime. It was held that it is not the official duty of a public servant to fabricate the records and misappropriate the public fund etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties and fabrication of official record or misappropriation of public fund is not integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of same transaction and in this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set-aside the order of Magistrate dismissing the complaint and restored the same.
32. In another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Prakash Singh Badal and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others” reported in ( 2007) 1 SCC 1 , it has
17
been held that the offence of cheating under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of IPC can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any Public Servant, while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty and in such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of offence and accordingly, sanction for prosecution of the competent authority is not required.
33. In the instant case the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as fabricate the records and misappropriate the public fund etc. can never be said to be in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. Such acts and omissions as alleged and proved in the instant case do not form a part of or linked to the official duty of the petitioner particularly when it has been, inter alia , proved that the petitioner along with the co-accused collected money for issuance of Kishan Vikash Patra and National Saving Certificate, although, the concerned Post Office was not entitled to issue the same at all. In the instant case official status only provided an opportunity for commission of offence. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that there was no requirement of sanction for prosecution in the instant case. 34. So far as the sentence is concerned, this court is of the considered view that though 23 years have elapsed from the institution of the case but the manner in which the offence has been committed, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy of this court calling for any modification of sentence. The sentences awarded by the learned courts below are appropriate and adequate.
35. From the records of this case, it appears that there was a co-convict in the instant case, but he has not joined the
18
petitioner in the present case and the case, if any, filed by the co-convict could not be traced by this Court. The learned court below is directed to proceed in connection with the co-convict of the case also in accordance with law.
36. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing the materials on record both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the prosecution and there being no material irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgements, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
37. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the present revision petition is devoid of any merits, hence rejected. 38. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are hereby cancelled.
39. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.
40. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
41. Let a copy of this Judgement be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX/E-mail’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj/Saurav
3 issues framed by the court
Was prosecution sanction required for the sub-postmaster's fabrication of records and misappropriation of deposits?
Did non-examination of the investigating officer prejudice the petitioner and vitiate the conviction?
Did the passage of 23 years warrant modification of the sentence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Babaji Vs. State of JharkhandDistinguished¶71
2016 2 JLJR 558 (Babaji Vs. State of Jharkhand)
Kandu Murmu @ Khandu Murmu Vs. State of JharkhandDistinguished¶74
2018 ( 4) JBCJ 29 (Kandu Murmu @ Khandu Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand)
Sri Rupak Choudhury Vs. Smti Jaimati DekaDistinguished¶78
2018 0 Supreme (Gau) 22 (Sri Rupak Choudhury Vs. Smti Jaimati Deka)
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Amin BegDistinguished¶81
1997 0 Supreme (All) 1136
Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. and othersApplied¶83
AIR 1997 SC 2102 (Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. and others) · Who else cites this
Prakash Singh Badal and Another Vs. State of Punjab and OthersApplied¶85
( 2007) 1 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Hasib Ansari
State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
