Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1696 (RAJ)

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Rishabh Chandra

2008-07-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.–Petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti through its Secretary, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 5.12.1991 passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra (for short `the learned trial Court) in criminal misc. case No. 188/85, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1961 (for short `the Act of 1961) by giving him benefit of doubt. (2). As per the case of the prosecution, the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Neem-ka-Thana, (in short `the Samiti) submitted a complaint to this effect that accused purchased leaves of Tendu in the sum of Rs. 422252.75 without any licence and on the aforesaid leaves, mandi shulk amounting to Rs. 4222.53 is payable and on this amount, late fee is made as Rs. 3824.00. He further stated in the complaint that the accused has not paid the aforesaid amount and thus, by violating the sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the Act of 1961, he has committed the offence punishable under the law. He further stated in his complaint that an amount of Rs. 8046.53/- ought to be deposited by the accused. (3). After submission of the complaint, cognizance was taken against the accused respondent and the accused was summoned by way of summons. (4). The description for the offence under sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the Act of 1961 was read over to the accused respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in matter. (5). The prosecution in support of its case produced PW 1 Prakash Chandra Vijay and certain documents were got exhibited. (6). Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. (7). After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 5.12.1991 acquitted the accused-respondent. (8). Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 5.12.1991 passed by learned trial Court, the petitioner Samiti has preferred the instant appeal. (9). In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent, as previously a case was also going on against the accused respondent. Lastly, he submits that the accused respondent purchased leaves of Tendus from 1980 to 1984 without license and for the aforesaid period he has not deposited the mandi shulk and delayed amount. Lastly, he submits that the accused respondent purchased leaves of Tendus from 1980 to 1984 without license and for the aforesaid period he has not deposited the mandi shulk and delayed amount. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 5.12.1991 is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. (10). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused- respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent. He submits that Ex. P1 is only one document, which cannot be read as evidence and this is a list, which is prepared by the Forest Department and the aforesaid list has been verified by PW1 Prakash Chandra Vijay. He submits that as per law, this list ought to have been proved by the person who made it. He submits that this is not an original document but aforesaid list has been prepared with the original document. Lastly, he submits that PW1 Prakash Chandra Vijay has not stated anywhere in Ex. P1 that at such particular place the name of accused is enrolled and from particular shop he has purchased the leaves of Tendus. Thus, the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 5.12.1991 passed by the learned trial Court need no interference of this Court. (11). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case. (12). Having gone through the impugned judgment 5.12.1991 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent. (13). The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Honble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Haryana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol 10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that it two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below." (14). SC 2006 Vol 10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that it two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below." (14). Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. (15). It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 5.12.1991 passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. (16). Accordingly, this appeal filed by petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 5.12.1991 passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra in criminal misc. case No. 188/1985.