apeal472.04.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.472 OF 2006
Abdul Razzak s/o Usman Ansari,
Aged about 52 years,
Occ: Business, R/o Buldana,
Tahsil and District Buldana. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
Tulsiram s/o Sitaram Pawar,
Aged Major, Occ: Patwari,
R/o Buldana, Tahsil and
District Buldana. ....... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S. Ghatole, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri T.R. Darda, Advocate for Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE: th
5 OCTOBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] The appellant is the original complainant in Summary
Criminal Case 1485/2001 who is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2 nd Court, Buldana on 14.11.2005.
2] Heard Shri A.S. Ghatole, the learned counsel for the ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:07:33 ::: apeal472.04.J.odt 2 appellant and Shri T.R. Darda, the learned counsel for the respondent.
3] The learned counsel for the appellant (herein after referred to as "the complainant") submits that the judgment of acquittal militates against the weight of the evidence on record. He would submit that the learned Magistrate was persuaded to hold that existing liability was not proved substantially due to the fact that while disputed cheque dated 07.08.2001 was issued towards the purchase of teak-wood worth Rs.1,51,200/-, the establishment of Seema Saw Mill of which the complainant is the Manager was closed since 1996. The learned counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the teak-wood was purchased by the complainant from Forest Department, Buldana and that the closure of Seema Saw Mill in 1996 due to expiry of licence would not rule out the sell of teak-wood by the complainant to the accused in 2001. 4] The learned counsel for the accused in rebuttal submits that except for a bare statement, the assertion in the evidence that the teak-wood purchased from Forest Department ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:07:33 ::: apeal472.04.J.odt 3 was sold to the accused in 2001 is not proved. The letter dated 17.10.1994 purportedly issued by Range Forest Officer is not exhibited.
5] The learned counsel for the accused would further submit that although the teak-wood is allegedly sold to the accused on 07.08.2001, the credit memo filed on record in support of said transaction is dated 22.03.2001. The learned counsel for the accused would further submit that in any event the learned Magistrate has taken a possible view and that in view of the well recognized restriction on exercise of appellate jurisdiction, this Court ought not to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.
6] I have given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal, and having done so, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is not only a possible view, it is the only view in the teeth of the evidence on record. Concededly, Seema Saw Mill of which establishment the ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:07:33 ::: apeal472.04.J.odt 4 complainant claims to be a Manager was not in existence in 2001. The licence was in the name of the mother of the complainant and had expired in 1995-1996. In this view of the matter, the contention of the complainant that he sold the teak-wood to the accused on 07.08.2001 is not trustworthy. The learned Magistrate is also right in holding that the transaction is rendered suspect also in view of the credit memo dated 22.03.2001 filed on record in support of the transaction which according to the complainant took place only on 07.08.2001.
7] There is absolutely no infirmity, on facts and law in the judgment impugned. The view taken is certainly not perverse. I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 8] The appeal is sans merit and is rejected.
9] The bail bond shall stands discharged.
JUDGE
NSN
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:07:33 :::