Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On the said complaint, FIR was registered at Crime No.602/2015 Ex-P/20 against the respondent/accused

-transporter. Statements of concerned witnesses were taken and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court of law and then case was committed to the Sessions Court, Guna.

4. Before the trial Court, core points for consideration were whether the accused cheated and dishonestly induced Store Keeper of Kendriya Sahkari Vipran Sangh and procured 15 tons urea in place of 5 tons and whether the accused forged/interpolated the requisite documents prepared for procuring the urea and committed criminal breach of trust. After considering the relevant documents and evidence in this regard, trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused. Therefore, this leave to appeal has been preferred along with appeal memo so as to challenge the order of acquittal.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant/State that Brij Mohan Tripathi Branch Manager, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank (PW-1), Mamta Agrawal In-charge Branch Manager (PW-2), Ompal Singh Computer Operator (PW-4), Abhishek Sen Manager, Prathmik Sahkari Samiti, Pagara (PW-3), Satrajeet Singh Store Keeper (PW-23), Rambabu peon (PW-6), Phool Singh Porter (PW-8) are the material prosecution witnesses and they supported the case of prosecution that respondent by forging the document procured 15 tons urea in place of 5 tons. Matter pertains to interpolation in the documents which is categorically proved by the prosecution through their witnesses and documentary evidence. Ompal Singh (PW-4) categorically deposed that he handed over the release order and DD to the respondent for release of 5 tons urea costing Rs.1,23,389/- but those documents were interpolated and in place of 5, 15 tons has been written and in place of Rs.1,23,389/-, Rs.3,68,389/- has been written and procured the urea three times higher on the basis of those forged and interpolated documents.

6. It is further submitted that respondent was the only person in whose possession those documents were placed and he by forging those documents procured much more quantity of DAP urea. Witnesses from Cooperative Bank, Cooperative Society and Marketing Organization supported the case of prosecution and categorically deposed that it was the respondent who forged the documents by making interpolation and procured additional urea from the Marketing Organization. Hence, the trial Court committed grave error in acquitting the respondent. Other material prosecution witnesses have also supported the story of prosecution. Thus, applicant/State prayed that the trial Court erred in recording acquittal in favour of respondent accused and caused illegality.