Sanjay Bhattacharjee And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1116 of 2016
--------
1. Sanjay Bhattacharjee, son of Sadhan Chandra Bhattacharjee
2. Sadhan Chandra Bhattacharjee, son of Late Harish Chandra
Bhattacharjee
Both are residents of Kasida, Durgabari, P.O. & P.S.-Ghatsila,
District-East Singhbhum
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bikash Kumar Guha, son of Late Binoy Kumar Guha, resident of 32,
Khasmahal, Asha Niketan, P.O. & P.S.-Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur,
District-East Sighbhum
… … Opp. Parties
-----
P R E S E N T
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, A.C. to
Mr. A.K. Das, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate
--------
C.A.V. on 12.08.2026 Pronounced on 03/09/2026
1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Sankalp Goswami ,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal,
learned A.P.P. and Mr. Arbind Kumar , learned counsel appearing for
the opposite party No.2.
2. Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated
28.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2008, whereby and
whereunder the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
st
22.07.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class,
Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 203 of 2002, T.R. No. 1364 of 2008
whereby and whereunder, the petitioners have been convicted for the
offences under Sections 406, 420/34 of the I.P.C. Further , petitioner
2026:JHHC:26731
No.1, Sanjay Bhattacharjee has been held guilty for the offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, both the petitioners have
been sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years along with fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section
406/34 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for three years along with fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 420/34 of the I.P.C. each
with default stipulation. P etitioner No.1, Sanjay Bhattacharjee has
also been separately sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay
compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- to the complainant for the offence
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act along with interest @ 18% per
annum, apart from the sentences imposed upon him for the aforesaid
offences.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the
complainant is an employee of Atomic Minerals Division, Department
of Atomic Energy, Khashmahal, Jamshedpur where accused No.2 was
also employed. There was good relationship between the complainant
and accused No.2 on account of their being a co-employee in the same
department and posted at the same place, i.e., Jamshedpur. Accused
No.2 being a co-employee and friend of complainant, used to
frequently visit the complainant’s house along with accused no.1, his
son. Consequently, they also established good relations with the
family members of complainant. By their acts and behaviour, the
accused persons had established a good faith in the mind of
complainant and his family members. Accused No.2 introduced
2
2026:JHHC:26731
accused No.1, his son, to the complainant by stating that he is an agent
of various non-banking financial institutions and also an agent of
L.I.C., K.V.P., and N.S.C. of Postal Department. He induced the
complainant to invest some amounts in non-banking financial
institutions for earning better income and profits. The accused No.2
also induced the complainant to purchase Kishan Vikash Patra through
accused No.1, as he was also working as an agent in Postal
Department. Accused No.2 induced and influenced the complainant,
in the presence of accused No.1 and the family members of the
complainant, to invest a substantial amount through accused No.1
sometime in April, 2000. After being induced by accused Nos.1 and 2,
the complainant issued three cheques. Out of these, two were self
cheques for Rs.50,000/-and Rs.49,500/- of Canara Bank, Khasmahal
Branch and State Bank of India, Parsudih Branch, respectively from
Savings Bank Account No.60999, dated 08.04.2000 and dated
18.4.2001, respectively, which were duly received by accused No.2.
One cheque was issued for Rs.1,07,900/- of State Bank of India,
Parsudih Branch in favour of accused. No.1 from Savings Bank
Account No.01190008261, dated 13.11.2000, for purchasing of ICICI
Bond and certificate of Safar Resort Ltd. Accused Nos.1 and 2 insisted
that the complainant should purchase certificates and bonds of the
aforesaid financial institutions for more earning than any other
financial institutions. Accordingly, believing the statement and
insistent made by the accused persons, the complainant gathered the
courage to make such substantial investments in different institutions.
3
2026:JHHC:26731
An amount of Rs.49,500/- was paid to accused persons for purchasing
Kishan Vikash Patra, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid through
cheque for purchasing certificate of Versatile Resort Ltd. and
certificate of I.L. & F.S. Thereafter, the complainant paid
Rs.1,07,900/- to the accused persons through cheques, as mentioned
above, for purchasing ICICI Bond of Rs.60,000/- and out of the
remaining amount of Rs.47,900/- a certificate of Sagar Resort Ltd.
After receiving the aforesaid amounts, the accused persons neither
visited the complainant’s house, nor supplied any certificates or bonds
against the amounts received by them, despite having assured the
complainant that they would do so. The accused persons kept assuring
the complainant that they would supply all the certificates and bonds
against the amounts received by them shortly. However, from the date
of receipt of the amounts, they continued to postpone the supply of the
certificates and bonds on one pretext or another. From the conduct and
activities of the accused persons, the complainant became suspicious
that some mischief had been committed. He immediately approached
ICICI Bank with a view to ascertain whether accused No.1 had
deposited the amount in the bank for purchasing the bond or not. The
complainant came to know about the fraud and cheating committed by
accused persons, when he learnt that no amount had been deposited by
accused No.1 with the bank for purchasing the ICICI Bond in his
name. The complainant also came to know that the certificates relating
to Versatile Resort Ltd. and I.L & F.S. were forged documents and no
office of Sagar Resort Ltd. is situated at the address given. The
4
2026:JHHC:26731
accused persons did not supply any original certificates as had been
represented by them before receiving the amount from the
complainant. The accused persons neither purchased the Kishan
Vikash Patra nor gave any reasons for not purchasing the same,
despite repeated requests made by the complainant. The complainant
thereafter came to know about the fraud and cheating committed by
the accused persons in respect of the amounts received by them
through false and dishonest inducement. He then started pressing the
accused persons, with the help of some friends and well-wishers, for
the return of the amounts received by them in a respectable manner.
However, with the assistance of some co-employees and friends of the
office, the complainant succeeded in obtaining a cheque from accused
No. 1. After being insisted upon and pressurized by certain persons
and friends, accused No. 1 issued a cheque drawn on Union Bank of
India, Jamshedpur, for an amount of Rs. 51,000/-, dated 09.08.2001,
from Savings Bank Account No. 13998, with an assurance that the
remaining amount would be paid within two to three months. Again
believing the assurances of accused Nos. 1 and 2, the complainant
presented the aforesaid cheque on 10.08.2001 through his Savings
Bank Account No. 30604 maintained with Punjab National Bank,
Jamshedpur. However, the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient
funds in the account of accused No. 1 and was accordingly returned to
the complainant. Thereafter, on the assurance and instructions of the
accused persons, the complainant again presented the said cheque on
14.09.2001 through his Savings Bank Account No. 60999 maintained
5
2026:JHHC:26731
with Canara Bank, Khasmahal Branch. The cheque was again
dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant once again
presented the said cheque through his Account No. 60999 with Canara
Bank, Khasmahal Branch, on 27.11.2001 and again on 11.01.2002, on
the assurance of accused No. 1 that the cheque would be honoured
upon presentation. However, on both occasions, the cheque was again
dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of accused No. 1.
The complainant came to know on 15.01.2002 from the bank about
the dishonour of the cheque on account of insufficient funds. The
complainant had been a victim of false and dishonest inducement by
the accused persons right from the beginning, when the accused
persons received the amounts from him. The accused persons had
dishonest intentions to cheat and deceive the complainant when they
induced him to invest such a substantial amount in the aforesaid non-
existing and fraudulent non-banking institutions. The complainant was
thereby caused a loss of Rs. 2,07,400/- by the accused persons, who
took advantage of their relationship with him, particularly the fact that
accused No. 2 was his co-employee and friend. If the complainant
known from the beginning about the false and dishonest inducement
of the accused persons, he would neither have issued the cheques in
their favour nor accepted the cheque for Rs. 51,000/- on the false
assurance that the remaining amount would be paid within two to
three months. Thereafter, the complainant caused three notices to be
issued to the accused persons through his lawyer, Sri R. C. Pandey,
Advocate, at their addresses at Ghatsila and Jamshedpur, on
6
2026:JHHC:26731
24.01.2002 under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, calling upon them to return the cheque amount within 15 days.
Out of the said notices, two were returned, while another notice was
served upon accused No. 2 at his Ghatsila address. The notice issued
to accused No. 1 was returned with an endorsement dated 04.02.2002
stating, "Addressee always out of station." The notice issued to
accused No. 2 at his office address at Jamshedpur was returned with
an endorsement dated 25.01.2002 stating, "Addressee refused."
However, the other notice issued to accused No. 2 at his Ghatsila
address was duly served upon him. Thereafter, the complainant
received a reply from accused No. 2 to the notice issued jointly to
accused Nos. 1 and 2, wherein accused No. 2 denied the allegations of
false inducement for investment of the substantial amount by the
complainant. Accused No. 2, however, denied having any relationship
with accused No. 1 in connection with any such transaction. The
notice issued under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act would be deemed to have been served upon accused
No. 1, as he had constructive knowledge of the said notice. The
complainant, having waited for the statutory period of 15 days from
the date of service of the notice, filed the complaint within 30 days
thereafter.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, C/1 Case No. 203 of
2002 was instituted and the case was subsequently transferred to the
Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The complainant examined
three witnesses, including himself, who were cross-examined by the
7
2026:JHHC:26731
defence before charge. Thereafter, upon hearing on the point of
charge, charges under Sections 138 of the N.I. Act and 406/420/34 of
the I.P.C. were framed against accused No.1, Sanjay Bhattacharya,
while charges under Section 406/420/34 I.P.C. were framed against
the accused No.2, Sadhan Bhattacharya.
5. The charges were read over and explained to the accused
persons in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
6. In order to substantiate the case, the complainant has adduced
following documentary evidence:-
(i) Exhibit-1-The counterfoil of cheque dated 13.04.2000
issued in the name of accused Sanjay Bhattacharya for amount
of Rs.1,07,900/- by complainant.
(ii) Exhibit-2-The counterfoil of self/bearer cheque bearing
No.895899 dated 18.04.2001 issued for amount Rs.49,500/- by
complainant upon which accused Sadhan Bhattacharya has
signed as token of acknowledgement of receipt of the same.
(iii) Exhibit-3-the counterfoil of self/bearer cheque bearing
No.7030263 dated 08.04.2000 for Rs.60,000/- issued by
complainant, which was received by Sadhan Bhattacharya by
putting signature on it.
(iv) Exhibit-4-Letter sent by ICICI in the name of
complainant.
(v) Exhibit-5-Letter dated 11.04.2002 sent by IL & FS in the
name of complainant
8
2026:JHHC:26731
(vi) Exhibit-6-Cheque bearing No.0577157 dated 09.08.2001
issued by accused Sanjay Bhattacharya in the name of
complainant.
(vii) Exhibits-7, 7/1, 7/2 and 7/3 are bank return memos dated
27.11.2001, 14.09.2001, 11.01.2002 and 10.08.2001
respectively.
(viii) Exhibit-8-Returned registered envelope and A.D.
(ix) Exhibit-9-Returned registered envelope and A.D.
7. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused
persons denied the incriminating evidence and pleaded innocence.
8. After conclusion of trial, the petitioners were convicted and
sentenced as stated above, which was upheld by learned Appellate
Court against which has been assailed in this criminal revision.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
impugned judgments are absolutely illegal and not sustainable in the
eyes of law, as the learned court below has miserably failed to
appreciate the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case. It is submitted that the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences have not been established against the petitioners particularly,
no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is
made out against petitioner no. 1, who is alleged to have issued the
cheque and there is absolutely no material or evidence to establish any
inducement or dishonest representation on the part of petitioner no. 2
so as to implicate him in the criminal case. Learned counsel further
submits that petitioner no. 2, being aged about 70 years, had no money
9
2026:JHHC:26731
transactions whatsoever either with O.P. No. 2 or with his son and has
been falsely implicated merely because he happens to be the father of
petitioner no. 1, with whom O.P. No. 2 allegedly had certain financial
dealings and investments. It is further submitted that the learned court
below has failed to appreciate the material fact that O.P. No. 2 did not
produce any cogent evidence from the concerned bank to establish
that the alleged cheques were ever debited or transferred in favour of
petitioner no. 1. It is also contended that the complainant’s witnesses
are none other than the mother and mother-in-law of O.P. No. 2, who
admittedly had not witnessed the alleged handing over of the cheques
to the petitioners, and their testimony, being interested and tutored in
nature, could not have been relied upon without independent
corroboration. It is also submitted that the conviction of the petitioners
simultaneously under Sections 420 and 406 IPC is legally
unsustainable in the facts of the present case, which aspect has also
been completely overlooked by the learned court below. Hence, the
impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and the petitioners
deserve to be acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Hence,
this revision may be allowed.
10. Per contra , learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 controverting the arguments raised
on behalf of petitioners has submitted that the learned Courts below
have rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record and have rightly convicted the petitioners for the
offences alleged against them. It is submitted that the complainant had
10
2026:JHHC:26731
handed over the substantial amounts to the petitioners on their
assurance and inducement for investment in different financial
schemes, but neither the certificates/bonds were supplied nor the
amounts were returned. The issuance of cheque of Rs.51,000/- by
petitioner No.1 and its repeated dishonour due to insufficient funds
clearly establishes the liability of petitioner No.1 under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further submitted that the
evidence on record establishes the active involvement of petitioner
No.2, who being a close acquaintance and co-employee of the
complainant, induced him to make the investments through petitioner
No.1. Hence, there is no perversity or illegality in the concurrent
findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below and the present
revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. I have gone through the record of the case and perused the
impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as the
learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
12. In so far as petitioner No.1, Sanjay Bhattacharjee , is
concerned, the complainant has specifically deposed regarding the
amount paid to him for the purpose of investment and has proved the
relevant cheque counterfoils as Exts.1 to 3. The subsequent issuance
of cheque No.0577157 dated 09.08.2001 for Rs.51,000/- by petitioner
No.1, marked as Ext.6, and its repeated dishonour for insufficiency of
funds, duly proved by Ext.7 series, further establishes the liability of
petitioner No.1. The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the
11
2026:JHHC:26731
N.I. Act has also not been rebutted by any cogent material or defence
evidence. Thus, the conviction of petitioner No.1 under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act does not call for interference.
13. As regards the conviction of petitioner No.1, Sanjay
Bhattacharjee, under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the I.P.C. is
concerned, the evidence of the complainant, coupled with Exts.1 to 5
and the subsequent conduct of petitioner No.1, sufficiently establishes
that the amount was received for the purpose of investment but was
not invested in the manner represented to the complainant. The
findings recorded by the learned Courts below against petitioner No.1
do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference
in revisional jurisdiction.
14. However, the case of petitioner No.2, Sadhan Bhattacharjee ,
stands on a different footing. The principal allegation against him is
that he was a co-employee and friend of the complainant, introduced
his son Sanjay Bhattacharjee and persuaded the complainant to make
investment through him. Mere introduction of his son or the existence
of a friendly relationship, by itself, cannot establish dishonest
intention or participation in the alleged offence.
15. There is no sufficient independent documentary evidence
showing that petitioner No.2, Sadhan Bhattacharjee received or
misappropriated the alleged amount. The cheque forming the basis of
the Section 138 N.I. Act proceeding was also admittedly issued by
petitioner No.1. The evidence of C.W.1 and C.W.2 does not establish
any specific act of entrustment or misappropriation by petitioner No.2.
12
2026:JHHC:26731
In the absence of cogent evidence showing that petitioner No.2,
Sadhan Bhattacharjee shared the common intention with petitioner
No.1 from the very inception, Section 34 of the I.P.C. cannot be
invoked merely on the basis of their relationship.
16. Thus, though the evidence may raise suspicion regarding the
involvement of petitioner No.2, Sadhan Bhattacharjee the same
falls short of the standard required for sustaining a criminal
conviction. The benefit of reasonable doubt, therefore, has to go to
petitioner No.2.
17. Accordingly, the conviction of petitioner No.1, Sanjay
Bhattacharjee, under Sections 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 138 of
the N.I. Act is hereby affirmed. However, the conviction for offence
under Section 420 of the I.P.C. can’t simultaneously be sustained. It is
a case of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of the
I.P.C. The ingredients of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the
I.P.C. have not been proved by prosecution, hence conviction and
sentence of petitioner No.1 for the offence under Section 420 of the
I.P.C. is set aside. The conviction and sentence of petitioner No.2,
Sadhan Bhattacharjee , under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the I.P.C.
are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges by extending the
benefit of doubt.
18. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed .
19. The petitioner No.1 Sanjay Bhattacharjee is on bail, his bail
bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the concerned
Trial Court within two months from the date of this order to sustain
13
2026:JHHC:26731
the remaining period of sentence awarded to him, failing which,
learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and
detention of the petitioner No.1 for serving the remaining period of
sentence awarded to him.
20. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
21. 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 03/09/2026
Arpit/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 05/09/2026
14