Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 407 (ALL)

AMIR CHANDRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-03

HARSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. Heard Sri N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The application for leave to file appeal has been moved by complainant against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.9.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, acquitting the respondent nos.2 to 10 of the charges under section 500 IPC. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant contended that the appellant was village Pradhan of Village Dhansua, District Farrukhabad and after his being elected as Gram Pradhan, the respondent nos.2 to 10 along with Awdhesh Kumar, Sukhendra Nath and Brij Kishore given a memorandum to District Magistrate Farrukhabad on 2.1.1993 making false charges of moral turpitude and corruption against the appellant with an intention to harm his reputation and the same matter contained in memorandum with false charges was got published in daily local newspaper "Amar Ujala" on 4.1.1993; that the accused were summoned under section 204 Cr.P.C. and during trial accused Sukhendra Nath and Brij Kishore died and proceedings against them were abated; that during trial accused Awdhesh Kumar entered into compromise with the appellant during Lok Adalat proceedings, through compromise deed dated 30.6.2013 wherein he admitted his wrong and vide order dated 28.7.2013 on his plea of guilty, during Lok Adalat proceedings, he was convicted and proceedings against him were completed; that the respondent nos.2 to 10 had joined Awdhesh Kumar in submitting the memorandum to the Collector and in getting the defamatory advertisement published in the local newspaper, upon publication of which, great harm was caused to the reputation of appellant apart from the fact that he was also put under suspension; that the respondent nos.2 to 10 were also party of the protest demonstration against the appellant which resulted in his suspension on account of political influence; that the learned Magistrate has acted wrongly in discarding the complainant's evidence and acquitting the respondent nos.2 to 10. Per contra, learned AGA contended that the judgment and order passed by the Magistrate is correct and there is no glaring mistake or perversity in the impugned order. Per contra, learned AGA contended that the judgment and order passed by the Magistrate is correct and there is no glaring mistake or perversity in the impugned order. Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record, I find that as per evidence adduced by the appellant in support of his complaint case, the memorandum was given to Collector on 2.1.1993 by a group of persons led by Awdhesh Kumar and upon demonstration by them, inquiry initiated against the appellant and vide order dated 20.2.1993, he was put under suspension and was directed to hand over the charge to Up-Pradhan. It has also been stated by the appellant that he remained under suspension for a period of six months and subsequently upon completion of inquiry, he was reinstated and continued as Pradhan upto 1995. The appellant has stated that he is unable to say as to in whose hand writing the memorandum was given. He has also stated that the memorandum to Collector was not given in his presence, and though he is not subscriber of daily newspaper "Amar Ujala" he came to know of the publishing of material against him in "Amar Ujala" on 4.1.1993. He has also stated the he is on inimical terms with the respondents and upon publication in the newspaper, he did not ask the accused persons, rather served them with a notice through counsel, as well as after going through the above publication in daily newspaper "Amar Ujala", he asked from one Satya Mohan, who told him that the matter has been got published in Amar Ujala by co-accused Awdhesh Kumar, who had gone to the office of "Amar Ujala". It is clear from the material on record that all the allegations have been made against Awdhesh Kumar mentioned above and no specific allegation has been made against any of the respondent nos.2 to 10 except that they are said to be part of the demonstration made against applicant and at the most they were also signatory of the memorandum, which was given to Collector by main/prime accused Awdhesh Kumar. Undisputedly, the matter with main/prime accused Awdhesh Kumar has been decided in terms of compromise before Lok Adalat wherein he is alleged to have pleaded guilty. It is not the case of appellant that the trial court has not taken any material evidence into it's consideration or has misread any evidence. Undisputedly, the matter with main/prime accused Awdhesh Kumar has been decided in terms of compromise before Lok Adalat wherein he is alleged to have pleaded guilty. It is not the case of appellant that the trial court has not taken any material evidence into it's consideration or has misread any evidence. It is settled principle of law that if at the time of passing an order of acquittal two opinions are possible on some point and the trial court has taken one in passing the acquittal order, the appellate court may not interfere with the order of acquittal and take another view unless there is some glaring mistake of law or perversity in the impugned order. The trial court has discussed and analysed the evidence on record in detail and has rightly held that the case of respondent nos.2 to 10 is also covered by the first exception to section 499 IPC. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified". In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the findings given in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the acquittal order and substituting it with conviction order. The application u/s 378 (4) Cr.P.C. has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The application u/s 378 (4) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.