Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2703 (RAJ)

Muktilal v. State of Rajathan

2022-11-03

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
ORDER 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 16.12.1986 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.30/79, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 109, 120-B, 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) P.C. Act. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants reads as under:- U/s 120-B IPC- One years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment. U/s 5(1)(d) r/w (2) P.C. Act r/w Section 109 IPC- One year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment. U/s 161 IPC r/w u/s 109 IPC- One years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that Subhash Chandra Mittal lodged a written report Ex.P-3 on 25.10.78 to the Additional Superintendent Of Police Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur alleging that Mohanlal SHO, Police Station, Khandela called him at Anand Hotel. When he reached there, he told that he would arrest him if he will not handover the tractor No. RJV 1962. He told the SHO that he had delivered the tractor to Ram Pratap, who resides in village Lunkaransar. SHO took him to the village Lunkaransar, where Ram Pratap told that he had sold the said tractor to Nand Ram. SHO seized the tractor and kept it at his residence and told that to pay Rs.11791/- to Mukti Lal towards his account and Rs.5500/- as bribe to him. Appellant Mukti Lal tried to obtain money for himself by exercising the pressure tacties. Trap proceedings were conducted and Mohan lal caught red handed with Rs.5500/-. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant and co accused Mohan Lal and Babu Lal. 5. Charges were framed under Sections 120-B, 161 IPC and Sections (5)(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act against the co-accused Mohanlal and under Sections 120-B, 161 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 109 IPC against the appellant-Muktilal. Co-accused Babu Lal was discharged by the learned trial Court. 6. Co-accused Babu Lal was discharged by the learned trial Court. 6. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 29 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent. Appellant examined one witness in his defence. 7. Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1986, ordered the conviction and sentence of appellant under Sections 120-B, 161 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 109 IPC. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant and also submitted that the trial Court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no criminal conspiracy is made out against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that slip-Ex.P-2 was written by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that no handwriting expert was examined, during the trial. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that prosecution fails to prove any demand and acceptance against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that witnesses namely Subhash Chandra (PW-2), Prabhu Singh Devada (PW-3), Satya Narayana Dutt Mathur (PW-4), Sunita (PW-5), Nand Ram(PW-6), Rammohan (PW-7), Moti Ram (PW-10), Jagdish (PW-16), Panna (PW-17), Ram Pratap (PW-18), Gauri Shankar (PW-19) had not supported the story of the prosecution. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per statement of Moti Ram (PW-10), slip-Ex.P-2 was written by Babu Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant had not abated Mohan Lal. So, appellant be acquitted. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. M. Sharma Vs. State Of A.P. in Criminal Appeal No.232/2006 decided on 25.11.2010 and C. B. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No.377/2009 decided on 24.02.2009. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. So, appeal be dismissed. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 13. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. So, appeal be dismissed. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 13. In the present case, complainant-Subhash Chandra Mittal had not supported the story of the prosecution. Majority witnesses of the prosecution were turned hostile and they had also not supported the story of the prosecution. 14. It is an admitted position that the prosecution had not proved demand and acceptance by the appellant. So, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence(s) under Sections 120-B, 161 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 109 IPC. So, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and order of the trial Court dated 16.12.1986 is set-aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 15. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Muktilal S/o Shri Jamna Lal is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.