The case arose out of a commercial transaction between the parties, the same had no bearing in the matter so long as the basic ingredients of the offence were satisfied in the case. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand before The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary in the matter of Ravi Shankar Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand [Cr. Revision No. 1031 of 2012].
The facts of the case were associated with an application for criminal revision by the petitioner directly from jail. The said application was filed to challenge the legality and validity of the judgment passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa dated 31.01.2012. According to the said impugned judgment, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the criminal appeal. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 406 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court. The Trial court had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 406 and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 427 of the IPC.
Amicus curiae for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s entire dispute case arose from a civil dispute between the parties. The petitioner was the Secretary of the NGO and was entrusted with stitching clothes for school children. As per the tender, the clothing was not found fit. He also submitted that nothing on record was found regarding the dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner by the courts below. The amicus curiae also stated that no evidence was found regarding the total length of cloth handed over to the petitioner. He submitted that no criminality was found in the instant case. He contended that the whole case was based upon the measurement taken at the back of the petitioner. The counsel for the opposition stated the impugned judgments were well reasoned and were based on proper evidence and no material irregularity was indicated.
Considering all the facts, The Hon’ble Court stated that “… This Court finds no illegality or material irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgments calling for interference under revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court is upheld and the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed.”
Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu