Dismissed¶31

Ganesh Chandra Kumbhkar Alias Ganesh Ch Kumbhakr v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Jun 2026Cr.Rev./905/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision; sentence modification to period already undergone; time-served sentencing; custody about two years two months; conviction upheld on merits; Sections 409 and 420 IPC; criminal breach of trust; cheating; misappropriation of deposits; Kolkata Aryan Food Industries Limited; Nirsa, Dhanbad; G.R. Case No. 3281 of 2014; Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2016; Sessions Judge Dhanbad; fine Rs.2000/-; High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.; 2026.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld on merits; sentence modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone (about two years and two months); petitioner discharged from the liability of his bail bond and sureties discharged; pending I.A.s disposed of. ¶31

Ganesh Chandra Kumbhkar Alias Ganesh Ch Kumbhakr Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court warranted any interference on merits in this criminal revision. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The impugned judgment is upheld on merits, with modification in sentence to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, the nature of the offence, and that the petitioner had already remained in custody for about two years and two months during the pendency of the trial and after conviction, in the interest of justice the imprisonment already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him.

¶29

Key takeaways

This criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.), Cr. Revision No. 905 of 2016, decided 12.06.2026: Criminal revision against the judgment dated 05.07.2016 of learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2016, which had affirmed the conviction and sentence dated 22.06.2016 passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 3281 of 2014 convicting the petitioner under Sections 409 and 420 IPC and sentencing him to R.I. for 3 years plus a fine of Rs.2000/- per offence with default stipulation, concurrently. Factual background: informant alleged deposits of Rs. 45,00,000/- by hundred persons through him in Kolkata Aryan Food Industries Limited and total misappropriation of about Rs. 4,00,00,000/-; petitioner was a Director. Petitioner's counsel confined himself to the quantum of sentence, citing custody of about two years and two months undergone during trial and post-conviction. The Court upheld the impugned judgment on merits but, considering the nature of the offence and the custody already undergone, held the imprisonment already undergone to be sufficient punishment and modified the sentence to the period already undergone; the revision was dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence; the petitioner was discharged from the liability of his bail bond and his sureties were discharged.

¶1

2026:JHHC:17133

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 905 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Ganesh Chandra Kumbhkar @ Ganesh Ch. Kumbhakr, son of Anand Kumbhkar, resident of 53, Bandrabad, P.O. & P.S.-Nirsa, DistrictDhanbad, Jharkhand

¶5

The State of Jharkhand	... ...Petitioner Versus … …Opp. Party
	-----
For the Petitioner	: Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State	: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. (through V.C.) -------- P R E S E N T

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

¶8

Dated: 12^th June, 2026

¶9

By Court 1. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

¶10

The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2016 by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 22.06.2016, passed by learned J.M. 1^st Class, Dhanbad, in G.R. Case No. 3281 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with a fine of Rs.2000/- for each of the offence with default stipulation. Both the sentenced were directed to run concurrently.

¶11

Factual Matrix

¶12

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant,

¶13

2026:JHHC:17133

¶14

Pankaj Kumar Sharma was agent of Kolkata Aryan Food Industries Limited having its office at Nirsa. According to the informant, hundred persons had deposited Rs. 45,00,000/- in the company through him. After the maturity of the policies, the company delayed the repayment of amounts on one pretext or another. The informant further stated that the company had 1,000 agents, each having 100-150 investors under them and had misappropriated about Rs. 4,00,00,000/- of the innocent persons. It has been stated that Robin Ojha was the C.M.D. The present petitioner Ganesh Chandra Kumbhkar was the Director of the Company. The names of other office bearers have also been stated. The informant further alleged that office bearers absconded and the company’s office has been closed. When the informant demanded his money, the petitioner mislead him and told that he is the associated with the new investment company, namely, MYGRA and if they will associate with the new firm, he will return their money. Subsequently, a meeting of agents was also convened but none of them agreed to join the new company. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the informant that their money will not be returned. Subsequently, this case was instituted.

¶15

After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. and the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad, took cognizance of the aforesaid offence.

¶16

Charges under Sections 409 and 420 of I.P.C. has been framed and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶17

In the course of trial, altogether four witnesses were examined and

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:17133

¶20

several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution.

¶21

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

¶22

After conclusion of trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above which was upheld by learned Appellate Court against which this criminal revision has been assailed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is submitted that although, no concrete evidence has been adduced by the prosecution against the petitioner, but he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for each offence along with a fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has undergone into custody for two years and two months in connection with the present case during the trial and post conviction. Therefore, he has been punished sufficiently for his guilt. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for modification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period of custody already undergone.

¶24

On the other hand learned Spl.P.P. for the State has defended the impugned judgment on merits and submitted that there was misappropriation/breach of trust in respect of Rs.45,00,000/- from different persons in the name of investment of money in the fake company. The petitioner was one of the directors, therefore, impugned judgment requires no interference and this revision is fit to be dismissed.

¶25

I have gone through the record of the case along with the

¶26

¶27

2026:JHHC:17133

¶28

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

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has already remained in custody for about two years and two months during the pendency of the trial and after conviction, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him.

¶30

In view of above discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment is upheld on merits but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above, i.e., the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

¶31

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence as stated above.

¶32

The petitioner is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.

¶33

Pending I.A.s, if any stands disposed of.

¶34

Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.

¶35

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶36

12.06.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 19/06/2026

¶37

Ganesh Chandra Kumbhkar Alias Ganesh Ch Kumbhakr v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Chandra Kumbhkar Alias Ganesh Ch Kumbhakr v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dashrath Mahto And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md.Islam Vs State of Jharkhand

Md Hadis Alias Md Hadish Ansari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mrs Aparna Atul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhushan Yadav Shashi Bhushan Biritia And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Pullin Mandal Alias Pullin Bihari Mandal And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Dashrath Mahto And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md.Islam Vs State of Jharkhand

Md Hadis Alias Md Hadish Ansari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mrs Aparna Atul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhushan Yadav  Shashi Bhushan Biritia And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Pullin Mandal Alias Pullin Bihari Mandal And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bhushan Yadav Shashi Bhushan Biritia And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand