2026:JHHC:16591 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016 -------- Geeta Kumari, S/o. Late Triloki Prasad Singh, R/o. Boaria, P.O.- Yasoda Math, P.S.- Motipur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Presently R/o.- Vill.- Bhikhanpura, P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Sadar, Dist.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar. (Legal Heirs) ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Sneha Rani, Advocate : Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. C.A.V. On: 05th May,2026 Pronounced On: 09/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. 2. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset here that original petitioner, namely, Triloki Prasad Singh has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court for the offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C. and directed to undergo R.I. for 3 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The revisionist Triloki Prasad Singh died during the pendency of this revision and substituted by his wife Geeta Kumari for contesting this revision on merits. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that Triloki Prasad Singh (since deceased) was posted as Assistant Manager Burmamines (Oxygen) godown of Bihar Stated Food and Supply Corporation from 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) 08.04.1994. In the physical verification of the godown from 13.04.1995 to 26.04.1995 by the Child Development Officer, Jamshedpur, on the basis of confidential information about some irregularities, the Child Development Officer, Jamshedpur conducted an enquiry in the said godown but Assistant Manager Triloki Prasad Singh was absent and absconded after taking all the important register and documents from the said godown since 15.03.1995 and he was continuously absent since then. It is further alleged that after physical verification, the account was prepared by then District Manager, T. N. Sharma and Assistant Account Officer, Shanti Ratan Bhatacharjee from 08.04.1994 to 24.04.1995 on the basis of available documents with assistance of the then accountant Sri Phulan Prasad but after preparation of the aforesaid account description, Sri Phulan Prasad did not sign over it for reason based known to him. It is further alleged that from the statement of account prepared, it transpired that Triloki Prasad Singh Assistant Manager had misappropriated 10-14.500 quintals of wheat and 266.500 quintals of rice, worth Rs. 1,38,118.83 (rupees one lakh thirty eight thousand one hundred eighteen and eighty three paisa). Therefore, the then District Manager, T. N. Sharma through his confidential Letter No. 39 dated 28.04.1995 informed the Managing Director, State Food Corporation and the Chief Administrator of Bihar Food Corporation vide confidential Letter No. 89 dated 06.06.1995 respectively recommending for institution of F.I.R. against Sri T. P. Singh. It is further alleged by the informant that the then District Manager T. N. Sharma has shown affection to Triloki Prasad Singh and the said godown used to have 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) got all allotment of food grains under JRY Scheme, even if, the capacity of the godown was much less. It is further alleged that since all the documents of this period has been removed, there may be possibility of larger defalcation. 4. On the basis of aforesaid typed information by the informant, Golmuri (Burmamines) P.S. Case No. 95 of 1995 was registered against accused Triloki Prasad Singh and others for the offence under Section 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. 5. After conclusion of investigation, two charge-sheets were submitted vide Charge-sheet No. 7097 dated 23.06.1997 against Triloki Prasad Singh and Janki Ram Rajak and Charge-sheet No. 17 dated 29.02.2000 against Tarak Nath Sharma. 6. The accused persons denied from the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 7. The Trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record, found that the food grains involved in this case were entrusted to thee accused Triloki Prasad Singh and the prosecution has not been able to prove direct involvement of other accused persons, namely, Janki Ram Rajak and Tarak Nath Sharma. Accordingly, convicted Triloki Prasad Singh alone was held guilty for the offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C. and other accused persons were acquitted. 8. The convict Triloki Prasad Singh preferred an Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2012 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 07.04.2016, the 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) conviction and sentence of the petitioner Triloki Prasad Singh was upheld and confirmed, which has been assailed in this Revision. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, by the order of Hon’ble Patna High Court, authorities were directed to constitute a committee to make an enquiry and fix the responsibility and liability for the purpose of realizing the defalcated amount. Therefore, a Money Suit No. 22 of 1998 was filed and a Committee of high officials was constituted. The Committee submitted its report as under:- “समीक्षा के क्रम में पाया गया कक प्रभार के आदान प्रदान के समय श्री रजक ने ककसी प्रकार की क्षकि की किकायि नहीीं ककया और न ही बाद में श्री रजक द्वारा कजला प्रबींधक को क्षकि की सूचना दी गई। भौकिक सत्यापन में खाद्यान की क्षकि प्रकाि में आई एवीं मुख्यालय ज्ाींपक 1399, कदनाींक 02.03.2001 एवीं स्मार ज्ाींपक 2016 कदनाींक 04.04.2001द्वारा पूछे जाने पर श्री रजक का आवेदन कदनाींक 21.04.2001 को प्राप्त हुआ, कजसमें उन्ोींने क्षकि राकि के कलए, उन्ें कजम्मेदार ठहराये जाने पर आपकि प्रकट की है। सकमकि यह महसूस करिी है की जब प्रभार के आदान प्रदान के समय ककसी प्रकार की क्षकि प्रकाि में नहीीं आई और न ही बाद में, उसकी जानकारी श्री रजक द्वारा दी गई िब यकद प्रभार के बाद ककसी प्रकार की क्षकि होिी है िो उसके कलए ग्रहण करने वाले काकमिक ही कजम्मेदार होींगे, न कक प्रभार सौपने वाले काकमिक।“ 10. It is further submitted that when the Committee found the petitioner to be innocent and the liability was attributed to Janki Ram Rajak (co-accused) as responsible for defalcation. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against him and ultimately decision was taken in the proceeding awarding following punishments to him:- 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) I. Except suspension allowance said Rajak would get nothing. II. Rs. 1,38,110/- would be realized from Sri Rajak. III. One increment with cumulative effect be stopped. IV. He was censored All the four punishment were given by Bihar State Food Supplies and Corporation Limited. 11. It is further submitted that during interregnum period, it is further relevant to state her that the department requested the District Magistrate, Chaibasa to withdraw the Money Suit as well as criminalcase filed/pending against the petitioner. As a result, the charge-sheet prepared against the petitioner remained ineffective. However, the Court did not allow withdrawal and directed the proceeding to proceed in accordance with law. In pursuance of the recommendation of higher Committee, the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbuum, Jamshedpur issued Letter directing the Additional Public Prosecutor in-charge to withdraw both civil and criminal case pending against the petitioner and to inform the authority. As a result, Civil Suit filed before the Court of Sub-Judge was withdrawn and subsequently, a petition was filed on behalf of the accused for his discharge and/or dropping the criminal case which was pending against him. 12. The learned Trial Court on such petition for withdrawal filed on 07.08.2006 directed to keep it on record and put up on date fixed. The petition was put up on 16.07.2008, on which dated the learned Magistrate rejected the petition for withdrawal on the ground that the 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) petition was filed on 07.05.2006 and it was moved on 25.06.2008 approximately after two years. 13. It is further submitted that in the course of enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was deputed on election duty and co-accused Janki Ram Rajak was in-charge and after return, the petitioner had gone on leave and Sri Rajak was in-charge and thereby, he was the person responsible for defalcation. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that out of 16 charge-sheeted witnesses examined during the trial by the prosecution, PW-3 Mohd. Sultan, Assistant in B.S.F.C. J.S.R at Kadma has specifically testified that “त्रिलोकी प्रसाद से सारा मामला त्रिभाग ने सेटल कर त्रलया है उसका आिेदन DC Sir को त्रदया गया था त्रिसमें उन्ोोंने कोटट से मामला बोंद करने एिों अत्रभयोिन िापस लेने का दरखास्त भी त्रदया है। त्रिभाग के पि के अनुसार उनके त्रिरुद्ध कोई मामला लोंत्रबत नहीों है।“ PW-4 has also stated that at the relevant time of alleged defalcation, the godown in-charge was Janki Ram Rajak in absence of Triloki Prasad Singh. He has also stated that high level Committee has also reported for withdrawal of the case against Triloki Prasad Singh. Likewise, PW-9 and PW-10 have also not supported the prosecution case rather it was stated that documents were not seized from Burmamines godown rather from Sakchi Godown. PW-5 has stated nothing against the petitioner. PW-6 was hostile. PW-7 is a formal witness. 7 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) PW-1 states that his statement was not recorded by the police and similarly PW-2 and PW-3 have also not supported any allegation against the petitioner. Other witnesses on whose testimony, the Court has placed reliance, namely,PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-15 & PW-16 have also stated nothing showing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged defalcation. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has also relied upon the following judgments:- I. Radha Pisharassiar Amma Vs. State of Kerala as report in (2007) 13 SCC 410. II. Prabhat @ Bhai Narayan Wagh & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra as reported in (2013) 10 SCC 391, wherein it has been held as under:-“ some of the accused persons acquitted giving benefit of doubt and conviction of only one, on the basis of same set of evidence, suffering from contradiction and discrepancies can’t be justified.” 16. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to consider the aforesaid materials as pointed out and ignoring the same, simply observed that the petitioner was Assistant Manager and was temporarily absent from duty makes no difference. Similarly, application for withdrawal of prosecution was rejected in absurd manner without recording any sound reasons. Since, the petitioner was afforded opportunity to raise all the matters during trial, hence, the said order was not challenged. The present scenario before the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court was to the effect 8 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) that the defalcated money was already realized from accused Janki Ram Rajak and Civil Suit was also withdrawn. Therefore, once liability has been fixed and money has already been realized then criminal liability only on the petitioner and acquitting the main accused Janki Ram Rajak is absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of the evidence available on record. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner is fit to be set aside which suffers from perversity and serious error of law and the petitioner (deceased) may be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, this revision may be allowed. Submission on behalf of the State:- 17. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has considered all the above points during trial and at the appellate stage and decided against the petitioner. There is concurrent finding about the guilt of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any glaring infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference in this revision. The finding of facts against petitioner has become final by the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Court below. Therefore, this revision is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 18. I have gone through the record of the case alongwith the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the 9 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. 19. The only point for determination in this revision is that “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of petitioner suffers from serious error of law calling for any interference in this revision? 20. Before adverting to the above points, I have to take brief resume of the evidence adduced during trial in this case. In the course of trial, it appears that altogether 15 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral testimony, following documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution:- I. Exhibit-1 &Exhibit-1/1 : Consolidated statement of rice of Burmamines (Oxygen) godown for the period of 08.04.1994 to 26.04.1995 and signature of PW-8 over the same. II. Exhibit-2: Consolidated statement of wheat of Burmamines (Oxygen) godown for the period from 08.04.1994 to 26.04.1995 and signature of PW-8 over the same. III. Exhibit- 3: Original letter of District Manager dated 17.05.2007. IV. Exhibit- 4: Typed information report. V. Exhibit-5: Seizure list of goods inward register of Sakchi godown. 10 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) 21. PW-1 Aseem Kumar Biswas, Assistant in the Office of Food Corporation at Chaibasa. According to his evidence, in the year 1995, he was posted as Assistant in the Food Corporation office, Jamshedpur. At that time, some defalcation took place in S.F.C., Burmamines godown but he does not know who was in charge of the godown at that time. He has no knowledge about any inquiry conducted in the matter. Although, he has stated that Assistant Manager was Triloki Prasad Singh, who was in-charge prior to the date of occurrence, but who was in-charge Assistant Manager at the time of occurrence, he has no knowledge. Therefore, this witness has not supported the prosecution case as alleged. PW-2 Kumar Nawal Kishore is the Accountant cum in-charge Assistant Account Officer, (AAO). According to his evidence, since July, 1994 to April, 1995, he was posted as Assistant Accountant Officer in Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Jamshedpur Branch. He has further deposed that since February, 1994 to 24.04.1995, he has prepared grains dispatch statement and produced the xerox copy of statement containing in two pages. According to him, original is lying in the office. According to his statement in the foresaid period, 10 quintals of wheat and 226 quintal of rice was found short. He further states that this report was prepared against then Assistant Manager, In-charge Triloki Prasad Singh and District Manager was Tarak Nath Sharma. According to him, Triloki Prasad Singh joined in April, 1994 and on that time, he was in election duty and his diversion order was for three days. 11 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) In the meantime, District Manager ordered to shift the grains from Burmamines(Oxygen) godown to Sakchi godown and food grains were transferred to Sakchi godown. At that basis, physical verification report was submitted by the constituted team appointed by Magistrate. The aforesaid shortage of food grains happened in the period of Assistant Manager In-charge of the godown whose liability was fixed. He has specifically stated that diversion order of food grain from Burmamines godown to Sakchi godown was made by the order of the then District Manager Shri T.N. Sharma. Since, he has not produced original report prepared by him, hence, xerox copy submitted by him was marked as Exhibit- X for identification. This witness clearly states, what happened after submitting of report, he does not know. PW- 3 Mohd. Sultan was also dealing Assistant in B.S.F.C., Jamshedpur. He has produced the report for the year 08.04.1994 to 26.04.1995 prepared by PW-1 A.K. Biswas. He has produced the carbon copy of the report which shows shortage of 10 quintals of wheat and 226 quintals of rice in the above period and this document was marked as Exhibit-1. He has further proved the carbon copy of statement prepared from original register by A. K. Biswas in respect on 10 quintal of wheat, its carbon copy of the said report is marked as Exhibit-2. He has further proved letter issued by the District Manager, Sri Narendra Dev Jha to produce these documents before the Court. The letter is marked as Exhibit-3. This witness clearly admits that in the year 1994-1996, he was not posted in any capacity at Burmamines godown of B.S.F.C. 12 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) In his cross-examination, he admits that neither Exhibit-1 nor Exhibit-2 was prepared in his presence. He has no personal knowledge about the said report and Exhibit-3 is also in his handwriting which was scribed on instruction of District Manager, Shri Narendra Dev Jha. Therefore, this witness, even having no personal knowledge about the report, simply produced the said report. The veracity of which has to be proved by PW-1, who had prepared the same and what about the original register, which has not been explained. PW-4 Rameshwar Prasad Das has deposed that a team was constituted in Patna for inquiry of defalcation in this case. He was also member of the inquiry team, who approached to the concerned godown and from the available office record, some paper work and documents were prepared. He has further deposed that at that time, District Manager was T.N. Sharma when the physical verification of Burmamines godown was conducted at that time Janki Ram Rajak was operating the godown. In transportation of food grains some irregularities were found but to what amount of irregularities was found he could not recollect. After inquiry, report was prepared and submitted as he recollect that the irregularities were to the extent of more than one lakh. According to him, whatever record was found in the godown at that basis the inquiry report was submitted. In his cross-examination, he admits that in the mean period of defalcation, Assistant Manager was Triloki Prasad Singh, District Manager was T.N. Sharma and Janki Ram Rajak was working as a salesman. 13 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) PW-5 Sushil Kumar Lal Karn & PW-6 Surendar Rajak have stated nothing and having no personal knowledge. PW-7 Om Prakash Vermahas deposed that in the year 1989 to October, 1996, he was posted in Bihar State Food Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Jamshedpur as Assistant Accountant. At that time, Shri Ravindra Prasad Singh was District Manager. He has further proved that written report of this case was typed by official typist Shri Shiv Pujan Prasad against this Assistant Godown Manager, Triloki Prasad Singh which was signed by the District Manager and marked Exhibit-4. In his cross-examination, he clearly states that recording regarding the facts in this case, he has no personal knowledge. PW-8 Shanti Brat Bhatacharya, this witness has proved consolidated statement of rice short in Burmamines godown for the period of 08.04.1994 to 26.04.1995 on the basis of available papers submitted by Shri Triloki Prasad Singh, then Assistant Manager of B.S.F.C., Jamshedpur at that time the stock was fall short of 266.64 quintals of rice. He has further proved the signature on said report as Exhibit 1/1. He has further stated that on the same day, wheat stock was also inquired and it was short fall of 10-14.5 quintals of wheat and the report was prepared which bears his signature and marked as Exhibit- 2/1. In his cross-examination, he clearly states that available documents were not produced by accused Triloki Prasad Singh because he was absent on the relevant time rather, the stock man 14 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) searched out the relevant registers and other documents. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted and report was prepared. PW-9 Laxman Lal was posted in B.S.F.C., Jamshedpur from 1993 to 1996 on different posts. He was in-charge of lifting food grains as per direction of District Manager. He used to supply the food grains allotted to the concerned godown and deliver to the transport agent. There is nothing else in his evidence as regards what quantity of wheat and rice was transported to the Burmamines godown. PW-10 Ashok Kumar was also posted in B.S.F.C., Jamshedpur from 05.08.1996. At that day, police arrived at the office in presence of another Assistant, Mukteshwar Prasad Verma at Sakchi godown and asked for registers of the relevant periods. He submitted Bhandar Panji (stock register) from page 01 to 49 out of which, page number 12 was torn. Similarly, Sakchi godown goods inward (Agman Panji) page number 25 to 29 out of which page number 24 carbon copy of page number 24 seized by police and seizure list was prepared by S.I. Shailesh Kumar Singh, which was also signed by him marked Exhibit- 5. He further states that in that period, Triloki Prasad Singh was godown in-charge. PW-11 Amrendra Narayan Singh, this witness was posted as Head Clerk in B.S.FC., Head Office, Jamshedpur. But at the time of occurrence, he was deputed in the office of Civil S.D.O., Jamshedpur. He has further stated that in the said period, A.G.M. of Burmamines godown was Triloki Prasad Singh and Janki Ram Rajak was also sales agent. He has heard about some defalcation of wheat and rice in that 15 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) matter. Therefore, this witness is also a hearsay witness having no personal knowledge about the fact of this case. PW-12 Manoranjan Prasad is the partial Investigating Officer of this case. This witness was officer in-charge of Burmamines Police Station on 08.06.1997 and assumed the charge of investigation of this case. After taking charge of investigation, he recorded the statement of Jagatanand Sharma who was Transport Agent. He also looked into the previous investigation and submitted first charge sheet against the named accused Triloki Prasad Singh, continuing investigation against T.N. Sharma and Vishram Ram. After completion of supplementary investigation, during which witness Asim Kumar Biswas, Kumar Naval Kishore, Sri R. P. Das, Sri Remand Mishra, Sri R.D. Tiwari, Sri L.K. Dubey were recorded by him. Thereafter, he was transferred on 15.05.1998 and handed over the charge to the then Officer In-charge Shri Ratan Kumar. PW- 13 Shailesh Kumar Sinha is the third I.O. of this case. He was entrusted with the charge of investigation by the then Officer In- charge Burmamines Manoranjan Prasad on 01.03.1996. He raided the house of accused Triloki Prasad Singh but he was absconding. He also recorded the statement of witness Harish Chandra Tiwari, Ashok Kumar and arrested the accused Triloki Prasad Singh. He further recorded the statement of witness Rafeek Ansari. He also arrested the accused Janki Ram Rajak. He has further recorded the statement of witness Asim Kumar Biswas. Thereafter, he was transferred on 26.05.1997 and handed over further charge of investigation to the Officer In-charge Manoranjan Prasad. 16 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) In his cross-examination, this witness suggests that on 06.08.1996 he has recorded the statement of Janki Ram Rajak as a witness because till that time there was no evidence against him. Therefore, he was not arrested in this case. Janki Ram Rajak was arrested in this case on the instruction of Superintendent of Police. He has further admitted that he has not conducted any investigation, due to election duty deputation of the godown in-charge who was involved in food grains loading and distribution in that period. He also admits that witness Lakshaman Lal has stated before him that godown in- charge Triloki Prasad Singh was on leave due to election dutyand in that period, Lakshaman Lal was sending food grains to different godowns as per their allotment. He also admits that witness Ashok Kumar Singh has not stated before him that at the time of occurrence Triloki Prasad Singh was on duty or he was on leave. PW-14 Ravindra Nath Tiwari is the first investigating officer of this case, who took charge of investigation on 07.10.1995 by the then Officer In-charge of Burmamines Police Station and after finding sufficient evidence submitted charge sheet. After assuming the charge of investigation, he has gone through the record. There was supervision note of Deputy S.P. directing to arrest the accused Triloki Prasad Singh and in respect of other accused persons direction was to collect further evidence. In the course of investigation, he went to State Food Corporation Office, Jamshedpur and attempted to receive concerned documents. He also got attachment order against accused Triloki Prasad Singh. Thereafter, he was transferred and handed over 17 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) charge of investigation to Officer In-charge. He has not recorded statement of any of the witnesses. PW-15 Mukteshwar Prasad Verma has proved his signature on seizure list dated 05.08.1996. At that time, he was posted in Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, District Office, Kadma, Jamshedpur. Police arrived at the office and two registers were seized by the police from Sakchi godown. One register of JRY in connection with Jawahar Rozgar Yojana and second register was of stock register. From page 01 to page 50 out of which page number 12 was torn. No other registers were available. The second register, inward register, (Agman Panji) was containing page 25 to 29 in original but page number 24 was in carbon copy. The police seized both the registers and prepared seizure list and on the basis of which, he signed over it which is marked Exhibit- 5. 22. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses and the documents of accounts prepared after detection of alleged defalcation, it appears that PW-2 Kumar Nawal Kishore who was AAO (Assistant Account Officer) since July, 1994 to April, 1995 at Jamshedpur Branch has clearly proved that he has prepared grain dispatch statement since February, 1994 to 24th April, 1995 containing in two pages, which reveals shortage of 10-14 quintals of wheat and 226 quintals of rice in the aforesaid period. Although, report was prepared against then Assistant Manager in-charge Triloki Prasad Singh (Since deceased), who had joined in the month of April, 1994 but at that time, he was in election duty and his diversion order was for three days. The evidence of this witness further shows that in the 18 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) meantime, the then District Manager, Sri Tarak Nath Sharma ordered to shift food grains from Burmamines (oxygen) godown to Sakchi godown and food grains were transferred to Sakchi godown. The carbon copy of report prepared by PW-2 has been proved as Exhibit-1 by PW-3 Mohd. Sultan. Admittedly, PW-3 was not posted at Burmamines godown at the relevant year 1994 to 1996. The evidence of PW-4 Rameshwar Prasad Das also shows that at time of physical verification of Burmamines godown, Janki Ram Rajak was operating the godown. PW-8 Shanti Brat Bhatacharya has prepared a report from stock register on the relevant period from 08.04.1994 to 26.04.1995 (Exhibit-1/1) but clearly admits that available documents were not produced by accused Triloki Prasad Singh because he was absent on the relevant time rather the stock man searched out the register and other documents. PW-9 was in-charge of lifting food grains as per direction of District Manager and was posted at B.S.F.C., Jamshedpur from 1993 to 1996 on different posts but has stated nothing concerning to Burmamines godown. Similarly, PW-10 Ashok Kumar has simply produced the stock register at the time of inspection by police and out of which some pages were torn. PW-11 Amrendra Narayan Singh was also posted at head office as head clerk, therefore, having no personal knowledge about defalcation of wheat and rice from Burmamines godown. PW-12 Manoranjan Prasad, PW- 13 Shailesh Kumar Sinha and PW-14 Ravindra Nath Tewary were simply investigating officers. 23. It appears that all the inventories and statement of accounts prepared either from Burmamines godown or from Sakchi godown are 19 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) alleged to be made from original registers but neither during investigation nor during trial, the original registers were produced to prove the authenticity of the report submitted. 24. From perusal of the record, it is also quite obvious that when the incident came into lime light and order was passed in writ petition by the Hon’ble Patna High Court for fixing the liability of erring official and realizing of defalcated amount in respect of shortfall of wheat and rice involved in this case, the inquiry was conducted and a Civil Suit was also filed for realization of money. It appears that at the relevant time, Janki Ram Rajak was operating the Burmamines godown and the then District Manager was Sri Tarak Nath Sharma (Sri T. N. Sharma). It is also revealed that when petitioner Triloki Prasad Singh was on election duty for three days, all the food grains were transferred to Sakchi godown by the order of District Manager, Sri T. N. Sharma. No record is produced showing as to what quantity of wheat and rice was transported from Burmamines godown to Sakchi godown in the interregnum period. It also appears that Title Suit for realization of money filed against Triloki Prasad Singh (since deceased) was withdrawn. An application for withdrawal of prosecution was also filed before the learned Trial Court but the same was rejected because it was placed after two years of filing of the application. It is also revealed that price of defalcated wheat and rice was got deposited fixing liability on co-accused Janki Ram Rajak and the then District Manager by whose order the food grains were transferred from Burmamines godown to Sakchi godown in absence of the then Assistant Manager Triloki Prasad Singh, were also accused 20 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) in this case, but they have been extended benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges. It appears that the petitioner Triloki Prasad Singh was convicted in this case simply because he was Assistant Manager in the relevant period posted at Burmamines godown, Jamshedpur. His temporary absence from duty was found to be not sufficient to negate his liability. Mere this fact, ignoring intervening conduct of the then in-charge who was operating the godown, namely, Janki Ram Rajak and the District Manager, Sri T. N. Sharma, who shifted the food grains from Burmamines to Sakchi godown has been completely ignored from consideration by the learned Trial Court. The inventories of food grains were also prepared from the register available at Sakchi godown within the charge of District Manager, Sri T. N. Sharma. Therefore, the material evidence adduced in this case which clearly inculcate the liability of other co-accused persons have been acquitted on the basis of same evidence, giving benefit of doubt. Hence, petitioner Triloki Prasad Singh was also deserving the same benefit because defalcated amount was deposited by co-accused Janki Ram Rajak and Civil Suit was also withdrawn against the petitioner and an application for withdrawal of prosecution was also filed before the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been adduced against the petitioner showing any defalcation of food grains in his period at Burmamines godown rather the statement prepared from register maintained at District godown, Sakchi has been relied upon by prosecution. 25. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find that both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has committed 21 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 570 of 2016) serious error of law in ignoring the relevant evidence exculpating the petitioner from any criminal liability of this case. The benefit of doubt given to other co-accused persons was also extendable to the petitioner Triloki Prasad Singh (since deceased). 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner, although he is no more in this world, is set aside and petitioner is also acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 27. Accordingly, this revision is Allowed. 28. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 29. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned TrialCourt for informationand needful. 30. Let the trial court records also be sent back to the concerned Trial Court. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:09/06/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 10/06/2026