Haji Mohammad Abdullah vs Mohammad Sidiq
2021 Latest Caselaw 672 j&K/2

                                                           S.No. 213
                                                         After Notice
                                                           Matters


             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                       AT SRINAGAR

                         Through Virtual Mode

               CRMC No. 50/2016

Haji Mohammad Abdullah.
                                                      ...Petitioner(s)
                       Through: Mr. M. A. Qayoom, advocate.

                             V/s

Mohammad Sidiq.
                                                      ...Respondent(s)
                       Through: None.

Coram:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                            ORDER

30.06.2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that the

petitioner has died and they have no instructions in the matter,

therefore, the matter may be disposed of accordingly.

2. This is a petition filed under Section 561-A & 561-B Cr.PC for

setting aside the order dated 18th October 2014, passed by the

learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kargil ["The appellate

court"] whereby the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kargil, dated 18th April 2013,

has been set aside.

3. Briefly stated the facts as projected in this petition are; that FIR

No. 20/2008 for offence under Section 457/379 RPC, was

registered at Police Station Kargil, against the petitioner on the

basis of a written complaint filed by one Haji Mohammad

Abdullah, on 20.03.2008.

4. The Police after completing the investigation presented the

Challan before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil, [The

Trial Court] which after holding the trial held the petitioner guilty

of the offences under Section 457/379 RPC and awarded simple

imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs 1000/- for commission

of offence under Section 379 RPC and simple imprisonment of

three years and fine of Rs 1000/- for commission of offence under

Section 457 RPC. Both the sentences were directed to run

concurrently. This order was challenged by State in an appeal

before the Appellate Court which was decided by the appellate

Court vide impugned judgment dated 18th October 2014. The

Judgment of the Trial Court was reversed and accused respondent

no. 1 was acquitted.

5. The petitioner is Complainant and has challenged the order of the

Appellate Court on the ground that there was no sufficient material

in the shape of oral or documentary evidence to acquit the

respondent no. 1, the accused in the matter.

6. It is submitted that the Trial Court Judgment was a comprehensive

Judgment and had been rendered by the Trial Court on the basis of

very convincing and sterling evidence brought on record by the

prosecution and therefore, there was no justification for the

Appellate Court to a contrary view.

7. Having considered the matter in the absence of assistance of

learned counsel representing petitioner as also the respondents, I

am of the view that no case for interference in exercise of inherent

jurisdiction vested in this Court by 561-A Cr.PC, is made out.

8. The Appellate Court has discussed the evidence lead by the

prosecution at length and has taken a view that the prosecution

has not convincingly proved the guilt of the accused. Otherwise

also, it is the judgment of the acquittal that is assailed by the

Complainant by way of a petition filed under Section 561-A ["J&K

Cr.PC"] now repealed and replaced by ["Section 482 Code of

Criminal Procedure 1973"] and the scope of interference with judgment of acquittal is extremely less even in a case where two

views are possible, the view that favours the accused is required to

be taken in an appeal or other proceedings against the judgment of

acquittal.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition and the

same is accordingly dismissed.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 30.06.2021 Shaista

SHAISTA RASHID SHAH 2021.07.03 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document