The State Of Chhattisgarh vs Samoo Mukharjee
2021 Latest Caselaw 775 Chatt

                                                                      NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            CRMP No. 2454 of 2019
        The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Bhilai Nagar,
         District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                   Versus
        Samoo Mukharjee W/o Tanmay Mukharjee, Aged About 45 Years
         R/o M I G, 952, Hudco, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.,
         District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                           ---- Respondent.


For the State          :-      Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy. GA.


         Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
            Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor,

   Order on Board by Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

01.07.2021 Heard on prayer for leave to appeal.

Learned State counsel would argue that the learned trial Court

has acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt only on the ground

that there are no documentary evidence to prove that the

respondent/accused was appointed as the agent of the company and in

that capacity she had cheated the complainant by inducing him to

invest huge amount in the investment company thereby causing

wrongful loss to the complainant. He would further submit that the

complainant and other witnesses have given oral evidence to the effect

that the respondent/accused had been acting as an agent of the

company and advising that the complainant should invest in the

investment company for high returns. The investment company paid

certain amount for two years and thereafter it stopped.

After having gone through the impugned judgment and the

documents particularly, the evidence of the relevant witnesses, we find

that the learned trial Court had acquitted respondent/accused recording

a finding that there is no evidence of respondent/accused being the

agent of the company and the complainant had invested after signing

various documents of investment which contains various terms &

conditions.

Considering the aforesaid facts and material, we do not consider

the present to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

CRMP is accordingly rejected.

                  Sd/-                                                Sd/-
       (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                         (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                  Judge                                              Judge
Ajay