RAMSANEHI Vs. SHRI KRISHNA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision, the applicants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment dated 13-1-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Link Court: Kawardha, in Criminal Appeal No. 87/95, modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-7-95 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha in Criminal Complaint Case No. 392/94, whereby and whereunder the trial Court after holding the applicants guilty for commission of the offence of cheating, convicted the applicants under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for three months & pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default additional SI for six months. While modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellate Court has reduced the sentence of fine imposed upon the applicants from Rs. 5,000/- each to Rs. 2,000/- each, in default additional SI for three months. During the course of hearing of appeal, non-applicant No. 1/complainant Patiram died and his son Shri Krishna Sahu has been impleaded as legal representative of Patiram in the present criminal revision.

(2.) As per case of the complainant, applicant No. I Ramsanehi was posted as Patwari and applicant No. 2 Jhumuklal was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat: Gandai, Police Station Bodla. Both the applicants directed Kotwar Firanta Das to proclaim any village for allotment of residential plots to them by applicant No. 1 Ramsanehi. Villagers approached, then Ramsanehi directed the villagers to deposit Rs. 25/- each before him and under bona fide belief, they deposited Rs. 25/- for each plot before applicant No. 1 Ramsanehi and also paid Rs. 1507-each before applicant No. 2 Jhumuk Lal for allotment of plots, but the applicants failed to provide residential plots. Villagers met Dr. Shrawan Kumar Verma (PW-6), a member of 20 point programme, who informed them that the Patwari & the Sarpanch are not empowered to allot residential plots, then they reported the matter to the police. Finally, complainant Patiram filed complaint. After preliminary enquiry, vide order dated 29-1-85, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC (at that time Section 161 read with Section 34 of the IPC was applicable). After recording evidence before charge, charge under Section 420 of the IPC has been framed against the applicants vide order dated 6-2-95 and finally, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the applicants in the manner mentioned above.

(3.) In order to prove the guilt of the applicants, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. The applicants have examined defence witness No. 1 Bihari who has deposed that the complainant and other witnesses have encroached upon the land and when the applicants initiated and proposed action against them, they have falsely implicated the applicants.