2026:JHHC:21538 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 792 of 2015 -------- Jai Prakash Kelenka @ Jai Prakash Kelenka @ J.P. Kelenka, S/o Late Tarachand Kelenka, resident of 103, Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi, P.O. & P.S.-Nangloi, District-Delhi-41 ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raj Kamal Poddar, S/o Late Hargobind Poddar, resident of Kirkend Bazar, P.S.-Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad A/P. R/o-Moin Electronics, 21 Rathore Mansion, Bank More, P.O. & P.S.-Bank More, District-Dhanbad … … Opp. Parties ----- P R E S E N T CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate -------- C.A.V. on 29.06.2026 Pronounced on 20/07/2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 07.05.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 2152 of 1994, arising out of Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No. 329 of 1994, whereby the petitioner has been held guilty for the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation has been upheld and confirmed by the Appellate Court. 2026:JHHC:21538 2 Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that in the month of March 1994, the informant, namely Raj Kamal Poddar had given Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner for purchase of five hundred shares of State Bank of India. The petitioner had not given him share certificates on repeated demand and misappropriated Rs.1,00,000/- in spite of his assurance that he will give the share certificate by 18.05.1994. It is alleged that the petitioner neither handover the certificate nor returned the money of Rs.1,00,000/- to the informant, hence, this case was instituted. 4. On the basis of above information, Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No. 329 of 1994 dated 12.06.1994 was registered for the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offence against the present petitioner. 5. In the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. (i) Exhibit-1-Signature of P.W.-2 on alleged acknowledgment letter of accused dated 03.05.1994 (ii) Exhibit-1/1-Signature of P.W.-3 on alleged acknowledgement letter of accused dated 03.05.1994 (iii) Exhibit-2-The written complaint (iv) Exhibit-3-Signature of the then Officer-in-charge of P.S. on formal F.I.R. 6. The case of accused is false implication and plea of innocence 2026:JHHC:21538 3 denying the allegation. 7. On the other hand, the accused himself has been examined as D.W.-1, but no documentary evidence has been adduced. 8. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record adduced by the prosecution and also considering the plea of defence has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the petitioner, which was also upheld by learned Appellate Court and has been assailed in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgments has vehemently argued that the very essential ingredient constituting the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. i.e. entrustment of property is lacking in this case. The informant has not filed any documentary evidence like income tax return showing that he has given Rs.1,00,000/- for purchase of shares of S.B.I. It is further submitted that most of the witnesses, namely P.W.s—4 & 5 have not supported the prosecution story at all. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has wrongly relied upon the sole testimony of informant to base the conviction of the petitioner for the offence charged against him. Therefore, impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. 10. Learned A.P.P. assisted with learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have controverted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that there are concurrent findings about guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. The prosecution has proved conclusively that Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the petitioner for purchasing shares of 2026:JHHC:21538 4 S.B.I. This fact has not been controverted by the defence. Since, the shares certificate were not allotted to the informant, there was no reason to mention the same in the Income Tax Return and such type of absurd plea cannot be taken to displace the prosecution story. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. The only point of determination in this revision is that “as to whether the impugned judgment passed by courts below suffers from any serious error of law perversity and impropriety calling for any interference in this revision?” 13. It appears that the prosecution has proved that Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the petitioner by the informant for purchasing five hundred shares of S.B.I. at the rate of Rs.200/- per share in presence of one Ashoke Kr. Sharma at the office of the present petitioner. The above contents finds corroboration from evidence of P.W.-6, Raj Kamal Poddar, the informant and Shri Ashoke Kr. Sharma (P.W.-4), which has not been rebutted by the defence. P.W.-5, Mr. Ashoke Kr. Chaurasia has also corroborated the aforesaid fact. 14. On the other hand, D.W.-1 has simply raised some allegations against the informant that he along with his anti-social associates 10-15 in number entered into his office, on 03.05.1995 and started scattering his files and threatening and also got signature on his letter pad, but no documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the above 2026:JHHC:21538 5 allegation. 15. I further find that the averments contained in the F.I.R. as corroborated by the informant and other witnesses clearly constitutes the ingredients of offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. as has been detailed discussed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason for taking a different view than the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have taken in their concurrent findings about guilt of the present petitioner. 16. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision, which stands dismissed. 17. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 18. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 20/07/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 22/07/2026