Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1701 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Kunj Bihari

2008-07-15

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24.1.2001 passed by learned Judge, Special Court (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 06/1999 by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Agricultural Officer, Suresh Chandra (PW 8) submitted report at Police Station Harmara on 30.04.1999 in which he has stated that on 28.03.1998, Agricultural Officer, Jagdish Prasad Yadav (PW 3) inspected the business premises of the accused respondent in the presence of Assistant Agricultural Officer Kailash Chand Sharma (PW 6) where they found 25 bags of Zink Sulphate Star Brand. They took the sample regarding their standard and divided in three parts. One sample was sent to the Durgapura Fertilizers Laboratory for examination where they were declared that the said samples was not of standard. After obtaining the said report, the complainant/appellant has filed a complaint on violation of the provisions of Section 19(A)(1) of Fertilizers Regulation Ordinance, 1985. Upon the said report the police registered the case for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondent, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, Kanhaiyalal Pareek (DW 1) has been examined. 3. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 24.1.2001 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence charged against him. 4. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order and judgment of the learned trial court dated 24.1.2001, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 5. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and without appreciating the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused-respondent from the charge framed against him. He has further draw the attention of the court that after obtaining the report from the Laboratory, they filed the complaint against the accused respondent. He has further draw the attention of the court that after obtaining the report from the Laboratory, they filed the complaint against the accused respondent. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.1.2001 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Anant Bhandari appearing on behalf the accused-respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after appreciating the prosecution witnesses the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. He has further contended that there is major contradiction in the statements of prosecutions witnesses and no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court in this appeal. He has further drawn attention of this Court that the independent witness was present at the time of occurrence but the independent witness was not implicated. Only the interested witnesses were produced by the prosecution. He further draw the attention of this court that there is major contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses specifically on the statements of Jagdish Prasad Yadav (PW 3), Murari Lal Gupta (PW 5) and Kailash Chand Sharma (PW 6). These witnesses are the main prosecution witnesses and they have made the contradictory statements and they are the witnesses related to take the sample of fertilizer. He has further draw the attention of this court in paras 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment which are very much relevant. He has also contended the accused respondent facing mental agony and trial for the last 9 years which is tantamount to a punishment. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 7. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 24.1.2001 passed by the learned trial court, I find that the learned trial court has given 15 cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent. 8. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which who has been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. 8. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which who has been charged 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 they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent.The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SCC 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 if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 9. 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 weight 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 and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.1.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur.State Appeal Dismissed. *******