Abdul Razzak S/O Usman Ansari vs Tulsiram S/O Sitaram Pawar
2017 Latest Caselaw 7847 Bom

 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

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

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

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