Dismissed¶37

Shakil Ahamad v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2024Cr.Rev./138/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi - criminal revision dismissed; sentence point only; Sections 467, 468, 472, 120-B IPC upheld; forged vehicle documents; D.T.O. rubber stamps and seals; 'National Rubber Stamp Company'; stolen Hero Honda motorcycles; no leniency; bail bond cancelled; pending IAs closed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature and manner of commission of the offence and the petitioner's involvement proved against him, the petitioner is not entitled to any lenient view; the sentence of 3-year imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- (default sentence of three months for non-deposit of fine) for offences under Sections 467, 468, 472/120B IPC is upheld. ¶36

Shakil Ahamad Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether, the revision having been admitted only on the limited point of sentence, the petitioner is entitled to a lenient view / modification of the 3-year sentence imposed for offences under Sections 467, 468, 472/120B IPC, considering his one year in custody, age of about 41 years, non-recovery of any motorcycle from him and absence of criminal antecedents. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

¶36

Key takeaways

The prosecution witnesses fully supported the prosecution case, including the petitioner's involvement in making the stamps and seals of the D.T.O. of different districts seized from co-accused; there is no perversity in the impugned judgments regarding the conviction calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (admitted 12.05.2016 on the limited point of sentence only) - Petitioner, convicted for offences under Sections 467, 468, 472 and 120-B IPC in connection with sale of stolen motorcycles using forged documents and D.T.O. rubber stamps/seals manufactured at his shop styled 'National Rubber Stamp Company' at Lohardaga, sought leniency citing one year spent in custody, his age of about 41 years, absence of recovery of any motorcycle from him and absence of criminal antecedents. State counsel opposed, pointing to the gang operation, proved conspiracy, and the petitioner's active role in making stamps and seals of the D.T.O. of several districts recovered from co-accused. Finding the prosecution witnesses fully supportive and free of material contradiction, and no perversity in the impugned judgments on conviction, the Court held the petitioner not entitled to leniency, upheld the 3-year imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- (default 3 months), dismissed the revision, cancelled the petitioner's bail bond and closed pending interlocutory applications.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 138 of 2016

¶3

Shakil Ahamad, S/o Bashir Ahmad, R/o Village Bangla Road, P.O. + P.S.- Lohardaga, Dist.- Lohardaga. … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, APP ---

¶8

07 /19.09.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶9

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶10

“That this criminal revision is directed against the conviction order dated 27/01/2016 passed in Criminal Appeal no 54 of 2015 passed by Mr. Pravas Kumar Singh, Sessions Judge Lohardaga. by which the judgment and conviction dated 30^th April 2015 in G.R. Case No 31/2009 was upheld wherein the Ld. C.J.M. has convicted the accused for the offences under section 467, 468, 472, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner has to undergo a sentence for a period of 3 years and in default of payment of fine imprisonment of 3 months with a fine of Rs. 2000.”

¶11

3. From the perusal of order dated 12^th May 2016, it is apparent that the case has been admitted only on the limited point of sentence. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued his case on the point of sentence.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of one year and presently the petitioner is about 41 years of age. He submits that no motorcycle as such has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, lenient view may be taken and the sentence of the petitioner be modified.

¶13

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State while opposing the prayer has submitted that the stamp of District Transport Officer and seal of any district have been made in the shop of the petitioner

¶14

which is situated at Lohardaga and the shop is named and styled as National Rubber Stamp Company. The learned counsel submits that there was a gang operating for the purposes of commission of offence and criminal conspiracy has also been proved against the petitioner. He submits that in this case, the accused persons were jointly retaining the vehicle to be sold after preparing the forged documents with one another and especially the petitioner, who actively supported for making stamp and seal of DTO of several districts. He submits that this petitioner has not been convicted for offence under section 414 of Indian Penal Code, but has been convicted for offence under sections 467, 468, 472 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

6. The prosecution case is based on the self-statement of Umesh Kumar Thakur, the then Officer-in-charge, Lohardaga P.S. recorded on 20.01.2009 at 03:00 PM alleging that on the basis of secret information received regarding involvement of Sakil Ansari in commission of theft and sale of motorcycle, the Informant alongwith police force went to Juria Village for verification of the matter and arrested Sakil Ansari. On interrogation, he confessed and disclosed involvement of other persons in commission of theft of motorcycle. He disclosed the names of his associates as Hanif Ansari, Md. Irfan Ansari, Md. Sarfraj Ahamd, Dinanath Prajapati, Ganda Ansari and Sundar Ansari who indulge in commission of theft and sale of motorcycle after making forged paper. On the basis of his confessional statement, the house of Sakil Ansari was searched and 03 Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycles bearing registration nos. JH05P-8706, JH03H-2368 and JH02H/3767, two owner books, rubber stamp seals of D.T.O. Gumla, Bokaro, Palamau, Garhwa and Jamshedpur and one Chinese mobile were recovered. Thereafter, the police raided the house of Hanif Ansari and recovered one Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing registration no. JH05P-2568, one Hero Honda Super Splendor Motorcycle having no registration number and one Hero Honda Super Splendor Motorcycle bearing registration no. JH13C-2882. Thereafter, the police raided the house of Irfan Ansari and recovered 02 Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing

¶16

¶17

registration nos. UP63F-3219 and JH02F-3972 and one owner book. The police also raided the house of Sarfaraj Ahmad and recovered 02 Hero Honda Splendor plus Motorcycle bearing registration nos. JH02K-5376 and JH12D-6895 and 02 laminated registration books. The police also raided the house of Sandeep Lohra and recovered Motorcycle No. JH10K/6776 and original paper in the name of Anil Mahto. Thereafter, the police raided the house of Dinanath Prajapati and recovered 02 Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycles bearing registration nos. JH03D-6367 and JH07R-2454 and some original documents. The police also raided the house of Tajul Ansari and recovered 01 Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing registration no. JHO7D-3016. The police also raided the house of Ekamul Ansari and recovered Motorcycle No. JH01P-9585. The police raided the house of Dilip Kujur and recovered one Splendor Passion Plus Motorcycle bearing registration no. JH12F-9787. The police searched the house of Hasim Ansari and recovered Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle No. JH07B-8433. All the recovered motorcycles and other articles were seized and accordingly, seizure lists were prepared and the accused persons were arrested. On interrogation, the arrested persons disclosed that the seized vehicles were stolen with help of Ganda Ansari and Sundar Ansari from Lohadaga and nearby other districts and from States like Haryana and Bengal. The process of sale of the vehicles was being made by Sakil Ansari of Juria. They further disclosed that the stamp of D.T.O. and seal of any district have been made in the shop of Sakil Ahmad which is situated at Lohardaga named and style as “National Rubber Stamp Shop” . They further disclosed that they were taking help of other associates and sometimes, they themselves used to sell the vehicles after commission of theft and they were committing such offence for the last three years.

¶18

7. On the basis of the self-statement of the Informant, the case was registered as Lohardaga P.S. Case No.09/2009 under Sections 120(B), 467, 468 and 414 of IPC against 08 accused persons including the petitioner. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer

¶19

¶20

submitted Charge-sheet under Sections 467, 468, 471, 473, 414, 255, 263A and 120(B) of IPC against Sakil Ansari, Md. Irfan, Hanif Ansari, Sarfaraj Ahmad, Dinanath Prajapati, and the petitioner. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 473, 414 and 120(B) of IPC was taken against them. After appearance of the accused persons, charges under Sections 467, 468, 472, 414 and 120(B) of IPC were framed against the accused persons including the petitioner which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶21

8. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09 witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 is Ejaj Ahmad, PW-2 is Nausad Ahmad, P.W-.3 is Afroj Ansari, PW-4 is Imroj Ansari, PW-5 is Sarvar Ansari, PW-6 is A.S.I. Madan Prasad Singh, PW-7 is A.S.I. Bhola Prasad Yadav, PW-8 is Dinesh Kumar who is the second Investigating Officer of the case and PW-9 is Umesh Kumar Thakur who is the Informant of the case. The prosecution exhibited the signatures of the seizure witnesses on the seizure lists as Exhibits- 1 to 1/3, the seizure lists as Exhibit- 2 to 2/9, registration papers of the seized vehicles as Exhibits- 3 to 3/6, self-statement of the Informant as Exhibit-4, formal FIR as Exhibit-5, Charge-sheet No.24/2009 as Exhibit-6 and the endorsement on the written report as Exhibit-7. The prosecution also exhibited the seized motorcycles as Material Exhibits- M/1 to M/12, seized mobile as Material Exhibit-13 and the stamps as Material Exhibits- M/14 to M/19. Other documents and registration papers were identified as Marks- X to X/3.

¶22

9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the incriminating evidences put to him and claimed to be innocent. The petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence in his defence. However, some documents were filed on behalf of the defence. Certified copies of judgments passed in G.R. No. 577/2008 & G.R. No. 533/2008 were marked as Exhibits- A & A/1 and certified copies of FIRs of Lohardaga P.S. Case No.186/2008 (G.R. No.

¶23

¶24

577/08) & Lohardaga P.S. Case No.172/2008 (G.R. No. 533/08) were marked as Exhibits- B & B/1 from the side of the defence.

¶25

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, this Court finds that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 are the seizure list witnesses and they have proved their respective signatures on the respective seizure lists. PW-4 is also a seizure list witness and he has proved his thumb impression in his seizure list. PW-6 was a member of the raiding police party and he has fully supported the prosecution case including recovery of the motorcycles alongwith papers, seal and stamps from the houses of the accused persons. He also identified the accused persons in court.

¶26

11. PW-7 was also a member of the raiding police party and he has also supported the prosecution case and recovery of the motorcycles alongwith forged documents, 06 seals of different D.T.O. from the houses of the accused persons. During his cross-examination, he stated that he has seen the seals kept in Almirah. PW-8 is the second Investigating Officer of the case after taking charge of investigation from Shyamnandan Deo on 26.02.2009 and he had submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. PW-9 is the Informant of the case and he was also a member of the raiding police party. He has fully supported the prosecution case and has exhibited seizure lists, forged documents and stamps. He also identified the stolen seized motorcycles as material exhibits and other materials. He claimed to identify the accused persons. He has specifically stated in his cross examination also that all the rubber stamps were found to be manufactured in the rubber stamp shop in the name and style of National Rubber Stamp Company of the petitioner. The defence has failed to elicit any material contradiction during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses to discredit their testimony.

¶27

12. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and recorded its findings at Paragraph 21 which reads as under:

¶28

“ 21. In the light of argument placed by both the counsels of the parties. Perused the entire material available on record that no doubt the motorcycles were recovered from the possession of all the accused persons except Sakil Ahmad and all these vehicles have

¶29

¶30

been produced which were marked as material Exhibits. The witnesses have also proved the documents like signature made on seizure list, and papers of registration book of the motorcycle, some stamps and sealed and mobile have been proved. F.I.R has also been proved. It is also pertinent to mention here that of course in a case of offence committed u/s 414 I.P.C the article seized by the police from the possession of accused should be stolen property but apart from this elements the other facts and elements also constitute the offence like accused assisted someone in concealing of disposing of or making away the such property and the accused had knowledge or reason to belief that the property involved was stolen property. The contesting witness i.e. P.W.6,7 and 9 have categorically stated in their evidence that upon receiving of the information the police party firstly searched the house of Sakil Ansari where the three motorcycles and registration paper, stamp and seal were recovered on his confessional statement. Not much only upon his disclosure the police has also raided the other coaccused persons whereon motorcycle and other fake papers including stamp and seal were recovered and the confessional statement made before the police leading to recovery is admissible under the relevant provision of evidence Act. The evidence brought on record also goes to show that that motorcycles were being sold after making preparation of forged documents and all they have known to each other for commission of an offence and it is needless to say that every one of the conspirators must have taken active part in the commission of each and every one on the conspiratorial act. Rather the offence of criminal conspiracy consists in a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by legal means, and the performance of an act in terms thereof. Here in this case the accused persons were jointly retaining the vehicle to be sold after preparing the forged document with the help of one and another and specifically accused Sakil Ahmad who actively supported for making stamp and seal of D.T.O. of several district. But so-called motorcycle has not been recovered from his possession, hence, the offence committed u/s 414 is not attracted against this accused. Hence, he is not found to be hold guilty u/s 414 I.P.C as such he is acquitted thereunder.

¶31

The prosecution has proved the documentary evidence like written report signature of the witness on seizure list as well as its writing several books of registration. Material exhibit is also proved. In this way from careful perusal of the evidence which discussed above clearly indicates that accused were involved for the offence as alleged. And thus, the whole evidence either documentary or oral are liable to be appreciated and admitted and found proved the charges against the accused persons . ” (emphasis supplied)

¶32

¶33

13. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner for committing the offences under Sections 467, 468/472 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 03 months.

¶34

14. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner after considering the materials on record and observed that the learned trial court has taken a lenient view while sentencing.

¶35

15. This Court finds that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and involvement of the petitioner in making the stamps and seals of D.T.O. of different districts seized from the co-accused persons. There is no perversity in the impugned judgements with regards to the conviction of the petitioner calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.

¶36

16. Considering the nature and the manner of commission of the offence and involvement of the petitioner which stood proved against the petitioner, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any lenient view. The sentence of the petitioner to undergo 3-year imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under sections 467,468,472/120B of IPC with default sentence of three months on account of non-deposit of fine is upheld.

¶37

17. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶38

18. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.

¶39

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

¶40

20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX’.

¶41

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶42

Pankaj

¶43

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Conviction order dated 27/01/2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2015 passed by Mr. Pravas Kumar Singh, Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, upholding the judgment and conviction dated 30th April 2015 of the C.J.M. in G.R. Case No. 31/2009 convicting the petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 472 and 120B IPC with 3-year sentence, fine of Rs. 2000 and 3-month default imprisonment.¶10
Sessions Judge, Lohardaga · 27/01/2016
Prior proceeding
Self-statement of Umesh Kumar Thakur, then Officer-in-Charge, Lohardaga P.S., recorded on 20.01.2009; case registered as Lohardaga P.S. Case No.09/2009 under Sections 120(B), 467, 468 and 414 IPC against 08 accused including the petitioner; motorcycles, owner books, D.T.O. rubber stamps/seals of several districts and a mobile recovered from houses of accused persons.¶18
Prior proceeding
Charge-sheet submitted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 473, 414, 255, 263A and 120(B) IPC against six accused including the petitioner; cognizance taken under Sections 467, 468, 471, 473, 414 and 120(B); charges framed under Sections 467, 468, 472, 414 and 120(B) IPC, accused pleaded not guilty.¶20
Prior proceeding
In the trial-court judgment dated 30th April 2015 in G.R. Case No. 31/2009, the petitioner (referred to as Sakil Ahmad) was acquitted of Section 414 IPC as no motorcycle was recovered from his possession, while the remaining charges were found proved.¶30
Prior proceeding
Trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 467, 468/472 and 120(B) IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default 03 months' imprisonment.¶33
Prior proceeding
In Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2015, the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence, observing that the trial court had taken a lenient view in sentencing.¶34
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 12th May 2016, this revision was admitted only on the limited point of sentence; arguments were thereafter heard only on the point of sentence.¶11

Shakil Ahamad v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakil Ahamad v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jogendra Kumar Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brajesh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ashok Chandra Bhakat Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Binod Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Janki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand