Judgment:
Cr. Revision No. 573 of 2002 (R) --- Against the judgment dated 14.08.2002, passed by the learned 12th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2000. ----- 1. Shrikrishna Pandey, S/o late Parshuram Pandey, Resident of Katras More, P.S. Jharia and District-Dhanbad.
2. Tuntun Sao, S/o Sri Jagarnath Sao, Resident of Manaitarn, P.S. Dhansar and District-Dhanbad. ......Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. …….Opposite Party --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP ----- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- C.A.V On 13.4.2017 Pronounced on 10/07/2017 Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J Heard the parties. This application is directed against the judgment dated 14.08.2002, passed by the learned 12th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 895 of 1993,whereby the petitioners had been convicted for the offence under sections 414, 420, 465, 474/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was subsequently modified and confirmation was made by the learned appellate court only with respect to Section 414 of IPC and petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months S.I. has been affirmed. The prosecution story in brief is that a search was made in depot of petitioner no. 1 and 150 metric tons of coal was recovered. Documents seized were alleged to be forged and therefore an FIR was instituted under sections 414, 420, 465, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code being Govindpur P.S. Case No. 75 of 1993. Investigation culminated in submission of chargesheet. After cognizance was taken, charge was framed and thereafter trial proceeded. Since the prosecution had been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, petitioners were convicted by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 13.12.1999 for the offence under sections 414, 420, 465, 474/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to various terms. Petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. -2- 2 of 2000, which was dismissed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad on 14.8.2002 by affirming the judgement of the learned trial court only to the extent of conviction meted out to the petitioners under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the petitioners were acquitted for the offence under sections 420, 465 and 474/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the coal, which was seized from the depot of the petitioner no. 1, was genuinely purchased and the papers were also verified by the Investigating Officer. It has further been submitted that there was no theft report and in view of genuinity of coal, which was purchased by the firm of the petitioners, petitioners could not have been convicted for the offence under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. It has also been submitted that verification report was not properly appreciated by the learned courts below on the ground that bills were not exhibited although verification report is based on the genuinity of the bills so submitted. Learned counsel submits that in absence of any material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners, the petitioners deserve acquittal for the offence under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W-1-Rabinder Singh is the seizure list witness, who had stated that seized coal belongs to petitioner no.
1. He has stated in his cross- examination that the coal was validly purchased and the same was not illegal. P.W-2-Babua Rai has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W-3-Murari Sharma is a formal witness. P.W-4-Manohar Ram is a witness, who had accompanied the raiding party. This witness was A.D.M (Law & Order) in the district of Dhanbad. This witness has stated that petitioner no. 2 was trying to flee away on a scooter but he was apprehended. This witness has further stated that no report regarding theft of coal was made by the BCCL. P.W-6-Ram Narain Mandal is the informant of this case, who has stated that on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, a -3- raid was conducted along with other persons in Krishna Coal Company. He has stated that petitioner no. 2 was arrested with a scooter on the spot. It has been stated that certain documents were recovered relating to illegal trade of coal. This witness has also stated that about 150 M.T. of coal was seized, out of which 80 tons of coal were raw coal and 70 tons of coal were burnt coal. P.W-7-Laxman Prasad is the Investigating Officer. This witness has stated that blank booklets are issued to the businessmen by the Commercial Taxes Department and they are filled up according to their convenience. It is stated that neither there was any report regarding theft of coal nor it was tried to be verified from BCCL. Defence has mostly relied upon Ext-B, which is a verification report submitted by the I.O., from which it appears that a case has been tried to be made out that 90 tons of coal was purchased by Krishna Coal Company and 60 tons of burnt coal was given to the petitioner no. 2 on bond in Govindpur P.S. Case No. 641 of 1992. Learned courts below have presumed the guilt of the petitioners on the ground that the bills, which are mentioned in Ext-A were never exhibited before the learned trial court and therefore a doubt has been cast with respect to bona fide of the bills. Ext-A is a document of the prosecution, which clearly shows that 150 tons of coal found in the premises of Krishna Coal Company had been satisfactorily explained. Regarding 90 tons of coal, documents were produced, which were verified and were found to be genuine and so far as rest 60 tons of coal is concerned, same were handed over to the opposite party no. 2, who is an employee of Krishna Coal Company. Doubt which has been cast by the learned trial court that the petitioners were dealing in stolen coal illegally has not been substantiated by the prosecution. The witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution, have not stated about the recovery of 150 M.T. of coal from the factory premises. Prosecution has not made out a case in light of the verification report (Ext-A) which could lead to conviction of the petitioners under section 414 of the IPC. Initially the petitioners were convicted apart from Section 414 also under section 420, 465 and 474/34 of the Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted for the offence under sections 420, 465 and 464/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Appellate Court, which affirmed the conviction made under section 414 of the IPC. Ext-A is a clinching piece of evidence for -4- the defence which demolishes the prosecution case that the coal, which was seized in the premises of Krishna Coal were stolen coal as sufficient proof has been given on a document, which has been issued by the Investigating Officer to suggest genuinity of coal, which was found in the premises. Merely because some documents which have been referred to in Ext-A were not brought on record by way of exhibits, same cannot demolish the theory established by the defence that the coal which was seized was never on account of an illegal transaction. Such circumstances therefore entitles the petitioners to be given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court under section 414 of the IPC is hereby set aside. The petitioners are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 10th July, 2017 Rakesh/NAFR