Jharkhand High Court
Md. Amjad vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 22 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.518 of 2003
Md. Amjad ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Opposite parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Amicus
For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Suraj Kishore, Advocate
Through:Video Conferencing
9/22.09.2021 Heard Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned Amicus appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State.
3. Heard Mr. Suraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party No.2.
4. Learned Amicus appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was the informant of the case and the
opposite party No.2 was convicted by the learned trial court, but
the appellate court acquitted the opposite party No.2 and
accordingly the present revision has been filed against the order
of acquittal by the appellate authority.
5. Learned Amicus has referred to the impugned judgments
and has submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse
and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned court below
calls for interference.
6. While advancing his arguments, learned counsel submits
that one of the defences, which were taken by the opposite party
no.2, was that the goods were purchased from Maa Durga
Trading Company and Krishna Enterprises, who were the
auction purchasers and the opposite party no. 2 had purchased
the goods from those persons and accordingly, he was the bona
fide owner of the goods.
7. He submits that in support of the contention, the defence
had produced Ext.-A & B, but the articles, which were seized, did
not exactly match the goods, which were mentioned in Ext-A & B
and further no witness from Maa Durga Trading Company or
Krishna Enterprises were produced before the learned court
below to substantiate the deals. He has also submitted that the
present case was preceded by theft reports as contained in Ext-5
to 5/6.
8. Learned counsel submits that in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the judgment of conviction passed by
the learned trial court was a well reasoned judgment and the
appellate court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the
matter in proper perspectives. He has further submitted that the
goods seized were not the scrap and accordingly the railway
cannot be said to have sold the goods in auction.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party
No.2 on the other hand has opposed the prayer of the petitioner
and submits that there is very little scope for interference in
judgment of acquittal. He submits that the counsel for the
petitioner has not been able to refer to any material, which has
not been considered by the learned appellate court while passing
the judgment of acquittal. He submits that the entire evidence
has been considered by the learned appellate court and even the
seizure of the goods, which were produced before the learned
trial court was doubtful, in view of the fact that the seized articles
did not have any marking.
10. He has further submitted that even the theft reports, which
were exhibited before the learned trial court, i.e. Ext.5 to 5/6,
though exhibited, but no TIP of the seized articles was done. He
submits that the theft reports were exhibited by PW - 5 and
specific questions in this regard were put to PW - 5 and
accordingly he submits that no matching has been done with
regard to the articles mentioned in the theft report and articles
alleged to have been seized.
11. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution has
failed to prove the case against the opposite party No.2 beyond
shadow of all reasonable doubt and accordingly the learned
appellate court has rightly acquitted the opposite party no.2.
12. Learned counsel submits that there is neither any illegality
nor any irregularity nor any perversity in the impugned
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned appellate court and
accordingly no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
submitted that the learned trial court had duly appreciated the
materials on record and there was no occasion for the learned
appellate court to acquit the opposite party No.2
14. Arguments concluded.
15. Post this case for judgment on 16th November 2021.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
R.Kumar/
