Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 393 (PNJ)

Lakha Singh v. Surinder Kumar

2011-02-01

K.C.PURI

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.:- This is an appeal directed by complainant against the judgment dated 18.8.2008 passed by Sh. Karnail Singh, Special Judge, Amritsar, vide which the‘ complaint under Section 3 (3) (1) (ix) & 3 (2) (ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant has alleged that he belong to Scheduled Caste (Majbhi Singh) and has got a certificate to that effect. He was working as a social worker for protecting the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections. On 30.4.1999, Balwinder Singh working as a labourer in the Grain Market, Rayya, was arrested by the police of police Post Rayya, in a case of theft of wheat and he was released on 2.5.1999. When the labourers of the market went to strike, Surinder Kumar, who was the President of Commission Agents Union got arrested Balwinder Singh on the false information of theft. Accused Surinder Kumar humiliated over the labourers strike which was organized by the complainant. He filed a complaint under Sections 452, 341, 506 IPC and FIR No. 99/99 was lodged at the instance of Surinder Kumar against the complainant. It was alleged in the said case that complainant came to the shop of Surinder Kumar at Rayya and he was wrongfully and forcibly confined there and was also intimidated and on raising alarm, he was rescued by Inderjit Rikhi, accused No.2. It is further alleged that petitioner was arrested at the instance of Surinder Kumar and ultimately, he was acquitted. The complaint filed by Surinder Kumar in connivance with Inderjit Rikhi is false and on that account they be punished under Section 3 (1) (ix) and 3 (2) (ii) of the Act. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the Sub Judge framed charge under Section 3(1) (ix) and 3(2) (ii) of the Act against the accused. 4. The prosecution examined complainant Lakha Singh as PW-1. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them. Surinder Kumar in his defence has produced statement of Prem Singh Exhibit DA and copy of order of Bar Council of India Exhibit DB. 5. 4. The prosecution examined complainant Lakha Singh as PW-1. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them. Surinder Kumar in his defence has produced statement of Prem Singh Exhibit DA and copy of order of Bar Council of India Exhibit DB. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on the file, acquitted the accused. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant has filed the present appeal. Alongwith the appeal an application for leave to appeal was also filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case registered at the instance of accused Surinder Kumar culminated into acquittal. Learned trial Court has simply dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant has been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. It is submitted that case registered at the instance of Surinder Kumar is false. The second accused Inderjit Rikhi has actively helped Surinder Kumar. So, in these circumstances, ingredients of offence under Section 3(1) (ix) and 3(2) (ii) of the Act are attracted and accused be punished accordingly. 8. I have considered the submission made by counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record of the case. 9. The main grouse of the claimant is that since he has been acquitted in the earlier case and as such, the provision of Section 3(1) (ix) and 3(2) (ii) of the Act are attracted. The said submission is meritless. Learned trial Court has rightly observed that the complainant has been acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. So, it cannot be said that provisions of the said Act are attracted. Otherwise also, the scope of appeal against acquittal is not as vast as the regular appeal against conviction. 10. So, in view of the above circumstances, the application for leave to appeal stands dismissed and consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. ---------0.J.S.K.0-----------