Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Smc Comtrade Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 3 January, 2018
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 491/2013.
M/s. SMC Comtrade Ltd. 11/6B Shanti Chambers,
Pusa Road, New Delhi through Authorised
Representative Rajesh Kumar Pahuja, S/o Shri
Chandrabhan, R/o 837/13 New Braham Colony,
Panjpath, Hariyana, Police Thana Model Town, District
Sonipath, Hariyana.
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
2. Sandeep Soni, S/o Shri Kesarimal Soni R/o
Choudhariyo Ka Kuwa, Sardar Shahar, District
Churu/1923, Sonthli Walon Ka Rasta, Jaipur.
For Petitioner : Ms. Sweety Mishra
For State : Shri R.R. Gurjar, P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment / Order
3/1/2018
Respondent No.2 had faced trial qua offence
punishable under Section 420 and 406 Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Trial Court/Juvenile
Justice Board vide order dated 13.3.2013 ordered the
acquittal of respondent No.2. Hence, the present petition
by the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Prosecution story. In-brief, was that delivery of 1 kilogram gold had been made to respondent No.2 by the petitioner company but the value of the said gold had not been paid to the petitioner. Juvenile Justice Board, while ordering the acquittal of respondent No.2, has held that P.W.1 Rajesh Kumar in his statement has stated that the deal with regard to the gold in question had not taken place in his presence. Receipt had not been issued by respondent No.2 in his presence after delivery of the gold in question to him. He further admitted that the value of the gold had also not been settled in his presence. P.W.3 Prashant Modi stated that the signatures of Sandeep Soni (respondent No.2) had not been obtained in his presence on Ex.P.4. He could not tell whether the said signatures had been obtained in the presence of Mahesh Chand Gupta. P.W.4 Mahesh Chand Gupta admitted in his statement that the signatures of Ex.P.4 had not been obtained in his presence but had been obtained in the presence of their employee Naveen Jain and he had only attested Ex.P.4. P.W.6 Ramdev deposed that no recovery of gold had been effected from the accused. So far as Ex.P.3 is concerned, it was not signed by the accused.
The reasons given by the Juvenile Justice Board while ordering the acquittal of respondent No.2 are sound reasons and the view taken by it, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is a probable one.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted.
However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed"
No ground for interference by this court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J. Mrg./48