2022 (7) TMI 1455 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonest intention of cheating - Deceiving complainant and public at large under the guise of wrong information, that their Company is recognized by Reserve Bank of India - on taking deposit the amount of such deposit was not returned at the time of maturity and their deposit amount is misappropriated - HELD THAT - There are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. As per the settled legal position and after conviction by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court on filing the revision the High Court maintained the conviction upholding the findings of the two courts. The High Court found the finding recorded by the two Courts to serve the sentence consecutively by the appellant and the other co-accused were not correct, hence set aside and directed to run such sentence concurrently - the finding of fact as recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court has rightly not been interfered while maintaining the conviction against the appellant. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC
2. Concurrent running of sentences

Detailed Analysis:
1. Conviction under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC:
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant for charges under Sections 409, 420, 409 read with Section 120-B, and 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was accused of deceiving depositors by not returning their deposits with interest as promised by the company. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicted the appellant for the mentioned charges. The High Court upheld the conviction under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC, emphasizing that the appellant failed to show authorization by the Reserve Bank of India and other required sanctions. The appellant contended that the charges under both sections were contradictory, and the prosecution failed to prove dishonest intention or misappropriation. The respondent argued that the findings of conviction were valid and not against the law, and the appellant could not raise new arguments at this stage. The Supreme Court noted the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts and upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the narrow scope of revision in criminal cases and the need for a well-founded error to warrant interference.

2. Concurrent running of sentences:
The High Court, while maintaining the conviction, directed that the sentences awarded should run concurrently, contrary to the Trial Court and the Appellate Court's direction to serve the sentences consecutively. The Supreme Court cited Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which confers full discretion to the courts to order sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for multiple offenses. The Court referenced previous judgments to highlight that the discretion should be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of offenses and circumstances of the case. The Court found no infirmity in the High Court's decision to order concurrent running of sentences and ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and the concurrent running of sentences as directed by the High Court.