A single bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari of Chhattisgarh High Court has instructed two individuals who posed as sales tax officers to provide Rs. 2 lakhs in compensation to the victims who were deceived into giving them 2.5 lakhs under the pretense of securing the allocation of a petrol pump and purchasing land.
The revision application was submitted by the accused whereby he has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to undergo Simple imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.50/- each, respectively.
The 1st Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal preferred by the applicant and modified the order of sentence whereby the fine amount imposed on the applicant by the JMFC was enhanced from Rs.50/- to Rs.2,05,000/-.
According to the prosecution, Jagdish Sahu, the complainant, filed a written complaint at the relevant Police Station, stating that the applicant in question and the co-accused, Monika Alex (who happens to be the wife of the applicant), presented themselves as Sales Tax Officers from Delhi. They allegedly exchanged contact numbers with the complainant.
The accused individuals persuaded him to secure the allocation of a petrol pump and the purchase of land. For this purpose, they asked for a specific amount of money, claiming it was for registration and similar reasons.
The complainant handed over a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on different occasions. It was claimed that despite receiving this money, the accused individuals did not allocate the petrol pump to him nor purchased any land in his name. As a result, the complainant alleges that he was deceived by the accused.
The bench also observed that the complainant has transferred the money in the bank account of the applicant vide Ex.-P/6 to Ex.-P/18 & P/21, which shows that a total amount of Rs.4 lakhs has been transferred by the complainant on different dates.
The counsel of the applicant/accused and the complainant have already entered into compromise and the said petition was rejected by the Court below.
The Appellate Court has already ordered to undergo substantive jail sentence and further ordered that the applicant shall also suffer jail sentence in the event of default in payment of fine amount, which has been enhanced by the appellate Court in aggregate for offence under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC to tune of Rs.2,05,000/-, though the trial Court has ordered to pay a fine of Rs.50/- only.
The court stated that the complainant’s evidence, presented during cross-examination, remained unchallenged, and this fact was further supported by other evidence. As a result, the court found no wrongdoing or weakness in the findings made by both lower courts, as they were based on the evidence presented on record. Consequently, the applicant’s conviction under Sections 419 & 420/34 of the IPC was upheld.
Given the circumstances of the case and to ensure justice, this Court found it suitable to modify the directive. Instead of the fine amount of Rs. 2,05,000/- imposed by the appellate Court, the applicant shall now pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to receive this amount as compensation, as already ruled by the appellate Court. The Court orders accordingly.
Furthermore, the applicant has already served both the actual prison sentence and the sentence for defaulting on the fine amount. The Court also directed that these sentences shall be considered as the default sentence for the compensation, as ordered by both Courts.
Additionally, it was clarified that the applicant will not be subjected to any additional jail sentence since he has already served the substantive jail term, and the default sentence for the fine has also been completed. The rest of the contested judgment will remain unchanged.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
