B ^ \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR CrimiaatRevistoBlfo. 112 of 2006 AFPLICAnT RESSFONDBHT- Vs. Raymond Augustin Deen Tg;e State of Chltatdsgarh Order post for '7-8-2007 Sdi- DhirendraMishra Judge f ^ SK ^.v BBta ffiffitil Bi'i w HIGH XSOURT OE CaiHATTISO&RHAT BHiaSmJR ApPLICAWF RESI'OKDEWF Crifaiaal Revlslon Ito. IIB of 2006 I "•" • • "• • . • Rayinond Augustiii Deen, son of E.N. Deen, aged 7 about 40 years, -resident of Sectoir-S Staie Bank Cokmy; Qr. No.- G- 4/3, Btulai, TellsiLasd Dtetnct Dui^ (C.G.) r, ..'^.'~':' :'^: "'.:; "':""-,:'--: :r.'"' The Si^te of~C]!iIiattisgaiii,;thTO'iLi^iDistri.ct M^istrate, Distnct Dui^ (C.G.) SB: H6n1>Ie^aiiri tJustiee unlrendrallislu-a. J. ft: Snri. Anuiag Jba, (^unsel-fQr the applicant. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for fhe State. p R %JB R TIus CT^mal revision is directed against the judgment of convietioit^ajui order of sentence dated 17-1-2006 passed in ©nmuialftppeal^o.233/2005 wherebylearned^i SessJpn.s^'.Iua^ (FTG), Durg has partly aUowed thfi crimiiial appeat^prefSlTed by titie applicalit against thejudgmenf passed t)y fhe Additional GhiefJudisial Magistrate and confirmed tfie conyiGtioit and jail sea.ten.ee iingosed ;upon fhe applicant Ra^moiid;^gustm under Section 420 of-I.P.C. however CQilVietulR^t^ selite^ upon the applicaiit under ,ggbtl9n;&ZSg, ;468 aind •4;/! o^KP.G. have been set-aside. ,. ^2 ^'iai&^^&jiecessaTy for adjudicatmg t^ revision are that charg&shfieCwas filed against the appeUant atong witH other co- accusea peFsons MaDita Deen. and pradeep Sanltier and: they were pi-dsecuted fbr ofierice under Sectioris 420, 467, 468 and 471 of 'I»El.e. and fh& leamed Additioiial CKief dudicial Magistrat&: .yide his judgment dated au-6-2005 passed in Crinuiial Gase No. 1;16»/2004 convicted tne appUcant under Sectiotis 420^,467, 468 and 4'?l-ofI.p.G and sentenced Iiiiil lo iinde]^"8SltoFayeais,topayafme^ count.;3'hei^>@eal pre^red t%:fhe .a^gUcaiit^as-pai^ allo^ •aad lus ,eolBa<i:tic>n^^^^i^^ fay tfae^iGagagH^jTidgDient^ Xo^ ;s. .^^"""^ '"''^^- ..^:^-" ':"^tlk?^f^~'L ' "'•.^•"^f^-^^tetf' Jfr^*t ;^? ^ ^ 'i-^^^^'.^:"-'^':,^^. :^::-^:' ^,r'^^ s^^^x^s':s ''s^'^ ?- 3. The allegation against the aGGUsed persons was that they in associa.tion witli Sandeep Guharai, the absconding aGcused, »^^»^„„„, »„„„^^ -„», obtataed monq? fi-om fhe complainant Thomas and victims Smt. Vmita, Mohini Deen, Yasmin, Javed Ahmed, Aml Topno, Rosem.ary, Sam.uel etc. on the pretext fhat fhey shall be provided employment in Australia in Synergy Internatioiial Conipany and for this piupose money ranging from 1.50. lakh to 2.50 lakh was obtained and for fhe above piirpose, docuiaents, ^ i ' . ...~ ~ appointment letters, i^pssages in the name of Synei®? Intemationai ©ompanywere fabricated throu&h com.puter. 4. Leamed Counsel for the appUcant submits that tfae prosecution witnesses namely AnU Topno (P.W. 1), Vimta (P.W. 2), Abha Minj (P.W. 3), Rosemary Samuel (P.W. 4), Raieev Abhisek (P.W. 5) and Elizabeth Samuel (P.W. 6) have not made any auegation against the applicant and fhey have made allegation only against the absconding accused Sandeep Guharai. This is e'vident from para 9 to 11 of tfae uapugned judgment. It is further contended that co-accused Manta Deen againstwhoui also, fhe identical allegations are there has been acquitted by bom the Cpurts below. However, the applicant has Deen eonvicted only on fhe basis of evidence of Thomas Samuel, Javed Ahmed, Mohini Deen. The offence was repstered on the wrong report of N.P. 'TTipathi (P.W. 14) however fhis witoess was not produced for CTOss-exataination by the prosecution and, therefore, his evidehce is to be discarded in toto and fhe F.I.R. has not been proved. 5. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel for the State ai^iied that both the Courts below on the basis of appreciation of evidence given by the victims Javed Ahmed (P.W. 10) and Mohini Deen (P.W. 13) who have-made categoncal aUegations against fhe applicant that he and Sandeep Guharai obtained Rs. 1 laldi in cash on ftie proinise of einRk>vinent MtU& fbreifi country and execiited an agreement foE fhe saidpurpdse and in ^ddition to the above; ainoiint, Rs. 25,000/- was al|s0 pai^s; towards expenses and thereaftjer they were tal^i to pae3u]M| ll.!l!w s--w ! -3 :.'.-•'-..-.-•"-.• •: •• . ' aiMruJtanat^i^h^were^^^ re&iFrKfrOHl^tHg!^ haS cgnmcted^^ 42Q^of^P.CEaiid ifeiscGnae^^ on p~oper^appreGJatron;\]Etf evidenGe and does not caU for aay interfo7ei]K»ineniaaiBSilrevisiGfn. s ' - 6. ^I hate Iieard^learHed counsel-fbr the^^arties. ; '^SS'^^eweci .Klnoea. (If.W. IQiEIias GategaricaUy stated in his agpositipn ffe^he leaititr^tfaa^ aiia-Saiid^pGuhm^^pilff?^^ fbreign Tcoiffi^^ and I'romised to inwride t^vith the aelp cfl^Bancl^gp;on~a fees of Rs. 1 lakh ^wi3^HpoB lie depositeti Rs^ ^l 1^^ tiEU-aieT" paul^^ a^ —E^reementwas also drawn after receipl of Rs. J;-:3Kffi^^^^^^ t)eat-&signatare^offhe appli<;%nt. Witness Motiihi lieen. (P.W.13) has also stajCed tUat she paid a'suffl; ofKS, ^t,25,OQO/- to fhe applica.nt, t^wevgr no receipt was given and a promise was made thafcTeGeiptwould be given later on. She fiad also goiie to Madras iri;liie mohth^of JuJy and AuguSfe as directed By the applicant and: she?was in regulffl' toix;n,witli ihe-a^Ucarit in. ^ that periocl,^hpweveT no emplpyment was^giv^ ana stie had ultima.tely retuEnfici. The appeuate Ooul't on tlie basis of statement o£these tvyo witnesses -lias ;JheM the'TappIijEiant guilty undeTSeGtion420crfI.P.C.alMc6iivic^^andsentei^ above. Finding of both the €3ourte^elicW is basiea;ion proper aRpi^iatiori of evjdeiice awailable OIT record. and looking to fhe planned maiai^.jn.vetiJcIi-iiuinbeT ^ vic^ ] tUeaFgUcffl3fraCTgtto9Btt^^^^^^0 coiigictetr uadeE Section^i;42 aof I,Ke. a^ sentenced luitt to ^ WLVief^Sy^^^^ ^L^^^^^^^^^^^S^^^^^^^ ::^'^:—'.'--•;.';.-'^1,;:.:.': ^:';, •::': :1; 8. It; is: 5ettiert\,lasff^ appellate CcniTt-OB-appreciatiioiraf'esidisiw reachfid ts tte c(Mlcurrentimdii%%^ tlie ca]aFge^ia@aiJi||j thg accused^wasBroived^tt^oH^i^^ ^^is:.iioit'!bpen foT.the.Mgtr-'Gouit'to'•intei'fere-.witH^Hl.eglJlilB^B —.--• •.asc.-sr'SSTZ's iEi;lii n a; w. 'SSSSSy£f^^SS?iB^':';;-:an^'^^.^sffi ^^ss^^^^^^;?'^?i@? [^"^^^?^^^ ms .j5B§a^jof th^^GQi.u^ ,;j)i3^^:-^eeaj^^oir^^^^^ of ^evidene&;ui itsgpevisipi^^^ )applicaiifwas nSf able to goint^ouEtKaB appBeeiSction df evidence by-Iibtfa the iSaurtstolow^^^w^ and the onh? grourid ui^ed was tfaat th^ofhCT co-ieeused^Mamta D^n has been aequitted though ssoSar eySS^K^m^ avl^aE^^a^^ her. BotK -fhe. Courts below: eonsid'SGmM :tbe•St'Qle played ~ t3v fhe appJlicaiit fhat fae was tnstiuHientffi ifi eonecting ttie money ui th8pamgofproyidingei^)loymefltan(r[sub^itre^ yictim.s^fp reach Madras and also^signed agreeHient'w'ith P.W. lQ:davedAhtue^, has coiivicte^^lSlm,, ^ 9., S In 1^ i^ult,fhfi petiti^ and fhe saine deseryes to be disimssed.arid.M is dismissed. Sd/- DbirendraMishra Judge iiiill "^f:."^. t^ ^,.v' .:,-.n^->.-g"-, ;^- :r:us^tfitf^s?Q+^ ?n-"u?^eT; ^.^ ".g:.;^=—~t"-t;¥:i sss^^^ ^••"~i^T<^---.J^.',^- ^fSS'.^-^t^ 'ss \3V^ ^jgRST—^