( 2026:JHHC:9936 ) -1- Second Appeal No. 115 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 115 of 2006 1. Binod Kumar Singh, son of late Bibhishan Kumar Singh, resident of Village-75 Hariharbari Bilasi Town Deoghar, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar 2. Brajesh Kumar Singh, son of late Bibhishan Kumar Singh, resident of Village-75 Hariharbari Bilasi Town Deoghar, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar … Appellants -Versus- State of Bihar through the Deputy Commissioner, Godda … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent : ----- 17/08.04.2026 Heard Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 06.02.2006 (decree not prepared uptill now) passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Godda in Money Appeal No.01 of 2003/01 of 2004 by which the said appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 05.03.1994 and 22.03.1994 respectively passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Godda in Money Suit No.01 of 1988 has been affirmed. 3. The State of Bihar has instituted Money Suit No.1 of 1988 for realization of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and also cost of the suit from the defendant, namely, Bibhishan Kumar Singh (father of the appellants), who was posted as Nazir at Boarijore Block, District- Godda. The aforesaid suit was decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiff with cost of suit for Rs.1,00,500/- with interest @ 12 per annum from the date of institution of ( 2026:JHHC:9936 ) -2- Second Appeal No. 115 of 2006 the suit till realization vide judgment dated 05.03.1994. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred Money Appeal No.1 of 2003/1 of 2004, which was further decided vide judgment dated 06.02.2006 by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Godda and the said appeal was dismissed with interest. Aggrieved with the said judgment passed in the appeal, the present second appeal has been preferred. 4. In Money Suit No.1 of 1988, the plaintiff-State of Bihar contended that the defendant-Bibhishan Kumar Singh was posted as Nazir at Boarijore Block, P.S. Boarijore, District-Godda. No duty inter alia was entrusted to encash the bills and to receive other grants payable to the B.D.O., Boarijore for disbursement among the staff, contractors and other under the supervision of the B.D.O. and to make entry in the relevant cash book and to keep the amount in his custody till disbursement. The defendant came to Godda with the bills worth Rs.75,628.60 paise along with security guards. The amount could not be encashed from the State Bank of India, Godda. The Security Guards who were deputed only for 01.07.1985 to retain book but the defendant did not retain. The defendant encashed the said bills amounting to Rs.75,628.60 paise in cash instead of Bank Draft. In absence of Security Guards, defendant should have not taken the amount in cash but should have taken it in the shape of Bank Draft. On 03.07.1985, the defendant deposited only Rs.628.60 paise in cash book but he did not explain the circumstances why he did not deposit the total amount. On enquiry, the defendant became payable and disclosed that the amount was lost while he was in Godda Court compound. The B.D.O. informed the ( 2026:JHHC:9936 ) -3- Second Appeal No. 115 of 2006 S.D.O. Godda and the S.D.O. informed the Deputy Commissioner, Godda about the defalcation of money and on the instruction from the State of Bihar, the said money suit was filed against the defendant for realization of Rs.75,628.60 paise with interest amounting to Rs.1,05,000/-. 5. The defendant- Bibhishan Kumar Singh filed written statement pleading inter alia, maintainability event of cause of action for the suit. The defendant admitted about the endorsement of bills on 01.07.1985 and to its encashment on 02.07.1985 from S.B.I. Godda branch but alleged theft of Rs.75,000/-from the Court compound, Godda. The defendant denied the fact that he did not come to Boarijore on 02.07.1985 rather he came to Boarijore and informed the B.D.O. who told him that he will be escorting Godda on Medical Jeep and then he encashed the bill on 02.07.1985. He took the money in cash because the bills were not payable through Bank Draft. As soon as he reached in the treasury verandah one constable kept his bag, containing the amount and a boy was seen away by some unknown persons and for which he lodged F.I.R. at the police. The defendant denied the allegation of defalcation and prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that both the Courts have not appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and have passed wrong judgments and in view of that, this second appeal is fit to be admitted. According to him, the judgments and decree of both the learned Courts are perverse and wrong and the same are required to be set-aside by this Court. He ( 2026:JHHC:9936 ) -4- Second Appeal No. 115 of 2006 next submits that both the learned Courts have not appreciated the evidence of the witnesses to the effect that the money was stolen from the defendant and in no situation, the defendant can be held responsible for such uneventful incident. On these grounds, he submits that this second appeal may kindly be admitted on the substantial question of law. 7. The learned first Court has framed following five issues to decide the said money suit: 1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the defendant is responsible to pay the amount which he has withdrawn from the S.B.I. Godda on 02.07.1985 and whether in fact security guard were provided to the defendant for the withdrawn of the amount from S.B.I. on 01.07.1985? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree claimed? 5. To what relief or reliefs of any the plaintiff is entitled? 8. Issue No.3 was with respect to whether the defendant/original appellant is responsible to pay the amount which he has withdrawn from the S.B.I., Godda on 02.07.1985 and whether in fact the Security Guards were provided to the defendant for withdrawal of the amount from S.B.I. on 01.07.1985 or not? 9. In deciding issue no.3, the learned first Court has found that the defendant-Bibhishan Kumar Singh, who has been substituted in the present second appeal by his legal heirs, was entrusted by the B.D.O to encash the bill worth Rs.75,628.60 paise, which could not be encashed on 01.07.1985 ( 2026:JHHC:9936 ) -5- Second Appeal No. 115 of 2006 but was encashed on 02.07.1985. The defendant/original appellant has admitted before the Court that he was entrusted by the B.D.O., Boarijore to encash the bill. Witnesses on this point are P.W.1- S.P. Singh, B.D.O., Boarijore, P.W.2 Balram, P.W.3 Rishitesh Jha, P.W.4 and many of D.Ws including the defendant D.W.11- Bibhishan Kumar Singh admitted that the cash was withdrawn from the Bank on 02.07.1985. D.W.2- Pitram Das was the Head Clerk of Boarijore Block and he has deposed that the defendant deposited only Rs.628.60 paise but did not deposit Rs.75,000/- which he withdrew. That was also reiterated by P.W.5- Pratap Narayan Singh and he stated that defendant made an endorsement of theft in the cash book dated 08.07.1985. The dispute arose thereafter because the defendant did not deposit the Government money in the Bank. The case of the defendant is that he encashed the amount but as soon as he came to the treasury varandah one constable told him that there is excrement on the back of his shirt. The defendant came to the tea shop of one Laloo Rout to wash the shirt. He kept money and started washing, he found that leather bag containing amount was missing. He raised hue and cry but could not catch the culprit. He lodged F.I.R. at Godda police station and the F.I.R. against unknown was marked as Ext. 'A' and his written report to the police station was marked Ext.A/1. In the final report, the said accusation was found false and same was admitted by the defendant (D.W.11) at para 6. P.W.1- B.D.O. alleged that he filed a criminal case for defalcation of the amount at Godda police station for the aforesaid Rs. 75,000/-. The defendant has also deposed that on the basis of benefit of doubt in the criminal case, he was acquitted. The place of alleged theft of defendant's bag containing Rs.75,000/- is tea shop of one ( 2026:JHHC:9936 ) -6- Second Appeal No. 115 of 2006 Laloo Rout. In light of the aforesaid evidence, the learned first Court has found that the theft was made but the Court doubted that the money was kept in the said bag. The learned first Court has opined that in place of cash, the bank draft was the remedy to take the amount. It has been stated in the plaint that on 01.07.1985, Security Guard, namely, Thakur Hansda, constable no.52, Durga Prasad Kisku, constable no.77 and Horen Marandi, constable no.154 were sent along with the defendant, but the defendant malafidely encashed the bills on 02.07.1985 and he made no prayer to any authority for deputation of Security Guards for 02.07.1985. P.W.8 Durga Prasad Kisku constable stated that he along with constable Thakur Hansda and Soren Marandi, guards accompanied the defendant from Boarijore to Godda on 01.07.1985. Ext. 1 is the Sanha entry of the police station from which it was transpired that constable Thakur Hansda with two other constables were sent to Godda along with Anchal Nazir to bring cash. P.W.8 constable Durga Prasad Kisku supported the contention of the plaintiff that the Security Guards were deputed along with the defendant for escorting the case on 01.07.1985 from Godda to Boarijore. The defendant-D.W.11 has also admitted in examination-in-chief that he came to Godda along with Security Guards and Anchal Nazir, however, the defendant in the written statement has denied existence of Security Guards on 01.07.1985 and subsequently he admitted the said fact. The defendant did not examine any independent witness on the point that he met B.D.O. on 01.07.1985 and requested him for Guards. P.W.1, who is the B.D.O. of Boarijore did not support the defendant on that point. The learned first Court has further found that ( 2026:JHHC:9936 ) -7- Second Appeal No. 115 of 2006 most of D.Ws. have stated that the defendant came to the tea shop of one Laloo Rout and the defendant tried to wash his shirt, which was allegedly damaged and on that point, there was no evidence that the shirt was made dirty due to some excrement. 10. In the aforesaid background, the learned first Court has found that the defendant encashed Rs.75,628.60 paise as Government money against the bills on 02.07.1985, but he did not take proper caution and after discussing the deposition of other witnesses, the learned first Court has been pleased to decree the money suit in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Aggrieved with the said judgment, the original appellant/defendant preferred Money Appeal No.1 of 2003/1 of 2004, which was decided vide judgment dated 06.02.2006 by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Godda and the learned first appellate Court has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal. The learned first appellate Court has further framed points for determination of the said appeal in paragraph 14 of the said judgment. The learned first appellate Court again appreciated the exhibits as well as oral evidence of the witnesses of P.Ws and D.Ws and has found that the defendant/original appellant was an authorized person and accordingly he was required to take the cash on 01.07.1985. As per Ext.1, security guard was provided. The security guard examined as P.W.8, who has further supported that aspect of the matter and, thereafter, the learned first appellate Court has been pleased to affirm the judgment of the learned first Court and dismissed the appeal. 12. Both the learned Courts have discussed entire evidence and, thereafter passed the judgments. It is well-known that only on the substantial question ( 2026:JHHC:9936 ) -8- Second Appeal No. 115 of 2006 of law, the second appeal can be admitted. In course of argument, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has not been able to demonstrate how the judgments of the learned Courts are perverse. There is no substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. There is concurrent finding of two Courts. 13. Accordingly, this second appeal is, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 8th April, 2026 Ajay/ Uploaded on 9th April, 2026