Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1208 (RAJ)

Mahendra Sharma v. Smt. Ramwati Sharma

2014-05-23

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 20.6.2008 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 2889/04, whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- "Complainant appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The trial court took cognizance against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and summoned the accused respondent. The substance of the accusation was stated to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Thereafter the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and she got exhibited some documents. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide his judgment dated 20.6.2008 acquitted the accused respondent. Hence, against the judgment dated 20.6.2008, this appeal was preferred by the complainant-appellant." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment dated 20.6.2008 passed by the court below is patently illegal, improper, unjust and not sustainable being contrary to the facts of the case and the material available on record. He has further contended that despite substantial and compelling reasons for conviction of accused respondent, the learned trial court acquitted the accused on wrong assumption of law, therefore, the acquittal of accused deserves to be reversed. He has further contended that the trial court acquitted the accused giving undue importance to minor discrepancies and making a suspicion on evidence based on conjectures, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 4. None is present for the respondent despite service of notice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in SC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 , in para 26, observed 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." 7. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in SC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 , in para 26, observed 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." 7. 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 and the learned Court below was right in acquitting the accused respondent for the alleged offence. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. 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. 9. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below, I find that the learned court below has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondent. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below acquitting the accused respondent and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal filed by the appellant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of the court below acquitting the accused respondent. *******