Partly allowed

Kamal Kant Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Apr 2023Cr.Rev./708/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Revision No. 708 of 2007, the High Court of Jharkhand examined the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. While upholding the finding of guilt based on corroborated evidence, the Court modified the original sentence of three years' imprisonment to two years, citing the petitioner's custody duration relative to the offense year and lack

What did the court decide?

The original sentence of three years for each offence was set aside and substituted with an aggregate simple imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Kamal Kant Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 708 of 2007

¶2

Kamal Kant Dubey …... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Tarkeshwar Kumar Rana .…. …. Opp. Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶3

-------For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. K. Dey, A.P.P --------

¶4

06/ Dated 03.04.2023

¶5

Heard the parties.

¶6

Nobody appears on behalf of opposite party No.2. It has been reported that the opposite party No.2 has died.

¶7

Petitioner Kamal Kant Dubey has filed this application against the judgment dated 13.07.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2007 by Sri Chamru Tanti, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bermo at Tenughat dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.12.2006 passed by Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with I.E.L. P.S Case No.16 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. Case No.613 of 2005, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I for three years for each of the offences along-with a fine of Rs.2,000/for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶8

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the informant Tarkeshwar Kumar Rana, alleging therein that the petitioner had taken Rupees Three Lakhs from him on the pretext of getting his son Sandip Rana employed in the Central Railway, Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner also took Rupees Two Lakhs from one Suresh Singh for the same purpose.

¶9

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

¶10

On the basis of the evidence available on record, both the learned

¶11

Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The informant Tarkeshwar Kumar Rana has been examined as P.W.9 and Suresh Singh the other victim of the case has been examined as P.W.5. Both of them have supported the prosecution case and have stated that the petitioner was given Rupees Three Lakhs by the informant Tarkeshwar Kumar Rana P.W.9 for employment of his son Sandip Rana (P.W.3) and the petitioner was given Rupees Two Lakhs by Suresh Singh P.W.8 for their employment in the Central Railway, Madhya Pradesh. Other witnesses have corroborated these facts stating that Rupees Three Lakhs and Rupees Two Lakhs respectively were given to the petitioner by the informant Tarkeshwar Kumar Rana P.W.9 and also by Suresh Singh P.W.8 for their employment in the Central Railway, Madhya Pradesh.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has adduced in evidence, an agreement dated 15.06.2005 between the informant Tarkeshwar Kumar Rana and this petitioner Kamal Kant Dubey, showing that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rupees Three Lakhs from the informant Tarkeshwar Kumar Rana as he was in need of money for marriage of his sister.

¶14

Perused the averment made in the agreement. It transpires that the petitioner was given Rupees Three Lakhs by the informant Tarkeshwar Kumar Rana by way of loan for the marriage of his sister. The allegation that he was given the aforesaid amount for procuring the job of his son, becomes doubtful. However, the fact that the petitioner was given Rupees Two Lakhs by Suresh Singh for providing him job in the Central Railway, Madhya Pradesh, has been corroborated by all the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that apart from the oral evidence, there is no documentary evidence to show that petitioner was given two lakhs Rupees by Suresh Singh.

¶16

Mr. A. K. Dey learned A.P.P submitted that there is nothing to suggest that the transaction of money was reduced to writing and as such, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the fact that no documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate the allegation.

¶17

Considering the entire facts and circumstance, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner

¶18

Kamal Kant Dubey for taking Rupees Two Lakhs from Suresh Singh for procuring him job in the Central Railway, Madhya Pradesh.

¶19

Accordingly, I am of the view that both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to the finding about the guilt of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

From perusal of the record, it transpire that the petitioner was remanded in this case on 29.07.2005 and he remained in custody throughout the trial. He was released during the pendency of this revision application by order dated 21.09.2007. Accordingly, it is apparent that petitioner has remained in custody for more than two years. The occurrence took place in the year 2005. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner is an accused in any other case.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid fact, the sentence passed by the learned court below, directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for three years each for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside.

¶22

The petitioner is sentenced cumulatively to undergo S.I. for two years along-with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall further undergo S.I. for 15 days. The fine amount shall be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of this order by the learned Trial Court.

¶23

This Criminal Revision is partly allowed with the modification of the sentence.

¶24

Pending I.As., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶26

BS/

Kamal Kant Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kant Dubey 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

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Soni Alias Jitendra Kumar Soni Alias Guddu Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karan Kumar Singh Alias Karan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Sao Ashok Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Ghamshyam Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahida Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Soni Alias Jitendra Kumar Soni Alias Guddu Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karan Kumar Singh Alias Karan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Sao  Ashok Sah Vs State of Jharkhand

Ghamshyam Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahida Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Sao Ashok Sah Vs State of Jharkhand