Revision petition filed against the decision of appellate court demanding to seek  revisional jurisdiction dismissed – Jharkhand high court

Revision petition filed against the decision of appellate court demanding to seek  revisional jurisdiction dismissed – Jharkhand high court

A criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the appellate court which dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of the sessions judge who convicted and sentenced the petitioner under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The present appeal is filed to review this judgment . the appeal was heard and dismissed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of Md. Kalim Versus The State of Jharkhand(Cr. Rev. No. 653 of 2002)

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no element of entrustment proved from the records of this case for the conviction of the petitioner the matter relates to payment of the award to the awardees of land acquisition and admittedly the cheques were issued in the names of the awardees and the cheque amounts were deposited in their accounts but it has been alleged that withdrawn amount was taken by the accused petitioner and therefore entire amount was not handed over to the awardees and there is also an unexplained delay in filing the FIR. it is also submitted that the branch manager of the bank in which the money was deposited and the examination shows that has deposed that the amount was paid in cash to the awardees after the amount was credited in their bank accounts on proper identification with this the counsel submits that the basic ingredients for the offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are also missing in the present case. Hence, the revision petition should be allowed in the present case.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the prayer and submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing the materials on record, which does not call for any interference. the council did not deny the fact that the Branch Manager of the Bank has been examined before the learned court below as court witness and he has also proved the entire documents relating to the opening of bank account, deposit of the cheques, and the withdrawal of the amounts by the awardees based on their withdrawal slips signed by them.

The learned court after hearing both the sides reviews the judgment of lower courts and decides that the courts have considered all the relevant materials on record and have returned concurrent findings holding the petitioner guilty of an offense under sections 406 and 420 of IPC by well-reasoned judgment and confirms that the basic ingredients of an offense under section 406 and 420 are proved by the prosecution beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. The court relied on the case of Jagannath Choudhary and others reported in (2002) 5 SCC 659 and Ramesh Kumar Bajaj reported in (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar) explaining the revisional jurisdiction of courts and the learned court decides that there is sufficient evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and is of the view that the finding of fact is presentable and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court and rightly upholds the sentence of the petitioner.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat