Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 9 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal

2008-01-02

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for respondent. 2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the order dated 9-8-1990 passed by the Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa in case No. 7/86 (258/75) in which he has acquitted the accused respondent (Kanhaiya Lal) for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12-8-1975 Surajmal Sethi, Enforcement Officer, Jaipur has submitted a written report (Ex. 13) by post in the name of SHO, Police Station Bassi, stating therein on dated 25-11-1972 he has visited Firm M/s. Mool Chand Kanhaiya Lal Food and Crude Oil Seller in village Jatwara, he found that the said Firm has obtained licence of retailer and did the business of wholeseller. He also found other irregularities. In this manner he has violated Section 6(3) of the Rajasthan Food Grain Dealer Licence Order, 1960. 4. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR (Ex. P. 14) for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been registered at Police Station Bassi and investigation started. During the course of investigation, he has also seized some documents of the firm and ultimately he filed a complaint before the Court of Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. After filing of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate has framed the charges for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the accused respondent. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of it's case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused respondent was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate through his judgment and order of acquittal dated 9-8-1990 acquitted the accused respondent of the charges framed against him by holding inter alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused respondent. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 9. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 9. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statement of prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the trial Magistrate. Thus, the impugned judgment and order are erroneous one and liable to be set-aside. 10. He further contended that the accused respondent was the acting partner of the firm M/s. Moolchand Kanhaiya Lal Food and Crude Oil Seller and sufficient evidence is available against the accused respondent. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reason, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent of the charges framed against him and thus no interference is called for in the impugned order and judgment. 12. It is also contended by learned counsel for the accused respondent that it was proved from the prosecution witnesses at the time of inspection the accused respondent was not present there. He has also drawn the attention of this Court upon P.W. 1 Chhaju Lal who was declared hostile and the P.W. 2, Ramswaroop. P.W. 5 Nathu Lal, P.W. 6 Bhawar Lal, P.W. 7 Pooran Mal, P.W. 8 Radheyshyam, P.W. 9 Jagdish Prasad were given their statements contradictory from each other. He has also contended that the statement of D.W. 1 Govind Narain did not support to the prosecution story. On the contrary, he has stated that the said firm belongs to the father of the accused respondent. 13. Heard Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for respondent and also perused the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court. 14. This matter (Appeal) has come up for hearing before this Court after expiry of a period of approximately 35 years from the date of occurrence (25-11-1972). 15. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa for not relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be erroneous one. 16. 15. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa for not relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be erroneous one. 16. The Court's attention was also drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao v. State of Haryana, reported in 2006 SCC (X) 136 : (2006 Cri LJ 2798) wherein their Lordships of Apex Court has observed in para No. 26 held as under :- "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." 17. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused respondent for the offence, against which they have been charged and the learned Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. I have no reason to disagree with the finding of the acquittal recorded by the learned Court below as it appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the learned Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa has given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused respondent. 18. It may be stated herein that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusion 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 Court as to the credibility of the witness, 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 dated 9-8-1990 passed by the learned civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. For the reasons indicated herein above, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9-8-1990 passed by the Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. For the reasons indicated herein above, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9-8-1990 passed by the Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. The accused respondents are on bail and need not surrender. The bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal dismissed.