RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. H.K. Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 18.04.2000 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 1995 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Porahat at Chaibasa in Bandhgaon, P.S. Case No. 53 of 1989 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 194 of 1989 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been dismissed and the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate of three years R.I. has been modified and reduced by the learned appellate court to two years R.I.
(3.) The prosecution case in brief is that an agreement was executed between the Block Development Officer and the petitioner on 27.05.1988 for construction of well under the Jaldhara Scheme. The petitioner is said to have signed in seven agreements for completion of wells which were to be completed by 30.01.1988 for which the petitioner had been given an advance amount of Rs. 5000/- for each of the schemes. It is alleged that in spite of taking an advance the wells were not dug till the month of December 1988 and notice was served upon the petitioner and consequent to the same Bandhgaon P.S. Case No. 53 of 1989 was instituted.;