Krishna K. Reddy vs R.D. Bhoyar And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 584 Bom

ORDER

A.P. Lavande, J.

1. Heard Mr. Naidu, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Wankhede, for the respondent No. 1. None present on behalf of the respondents 2, 3 and 7. The application stands dismissed as against the Respondents 4 to 6.

2. By this application under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicant, who is the original complainant in Criminal Case No. 241/1986 seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-11-2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, in Criminal Case No. 241/1886.

2.1 The complainant filed the above case against respondents/accused alleging commission of offence under Sections 448 and 380 of IPC. It is not disputed that the respondents are employees of Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Parseoni Branch. Learned Magistrate, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, and considering the defence raised by the accused, held that the accused believed that they were entitled to seize the articles belonging to the complainant since he was co-mortgagor of the property along with his brother Satyanarayan Reddy. Learned Magistrate, therefore, held that there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit offences of theft and trespass. Learned Magistrate ordered return of the articles seized by respondents. Moreover, the complainant also did not know the accused by name before lodging of the FIR. Considering all these circumstances, learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents/accused of the offences charged.

3. Naidu, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents/accused with full knowledge that they were not entitled to seize the articles from the complainant, seized the articles, in spite of the fact that they were told that the complainant had nothing to do with the mortgage of the properties of his brother with the Bank. He, therefore, submitted that the offences under Sections 380 and 448 of the IPC are clearly made out against the accused and the findings recorded by learned Magistrate are perverse warranting interference in appeal against acquittal.

4. Per contra, Mr. Wankhede, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 supported the impugned judgment.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the records. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Learned Magistrate, in my opinion, was legally justified in holding that there was no intention on the part of the accused/respondents to commit the offences under Sections 380 and 448 of the IPC. It is not disputed also that the respondents were employees of the Bank. The evidence on record discloses that the accused bona fidely believed that they were entitled to seize the articles belonging to the applicant. I do not find any perversity whatsoever in the findings recorded by learned Magistrate. As such, no case is made out to grant special Leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. Hence the application is dismissed.