Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prime Car (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Its ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6314
1 CRA-14017-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 7th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14017 of 2023
PRIME CAR (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ANAND
KUMAR TIKARIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms.Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent
[R-3].
ORDER
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
Under the proviso of section 372 r/w section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C
leave to appeal has been sought. This matter arises out of judgment
dated 05.08.2023 delivered in S.T.No.3800180/2016 by IInd A.S.J,
Dewas whereby respondent no.1 Kishore Pandit has been acquitted from
the charges under sections 408 alternatively 408 r/w section 120B, 420
alternatively 420 r/w section 120B, 467 alternatively 467 r/w section
120B, 468 alternatively 468 r/w section 120B, 471 alternatively 472 r/w
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6314
2 CRA-14017-2023
section 120B of the IPC and respondent no.2 Vikas Jain has been
acquitted from the charges under sections 406 alternatively 406 r/w
section 120B, 420 alternatively 420 r/w section 120B, 467 alternatively
467 r/w section 120B, 468 alternatively 468 r/w section 120B, 471
alternatively 471 r/w section 120B of the IPC.
2. Facts in brief are that this case arises out of crime
no.246/2016 registered at PS Industrial Area, Dewas. Anand Kumar
Tikaria (present appellant) is the Director of Prime Car (Pvt.) Ltd. Its
showroom is situated at village Rasalpur Tiraha, AB Road, Dewas where
respondent no.2 Vikas Jain was employed as salesman and respondent
no.1 Kishore Pandit was working as cashier. On 07.04.2016 it came to
the notice of appellant that Rs.1,18,000/- has been received from one
Arjun Singh Pawar and memo of receipt has been issued but only
Rs.500/- has been deposited. The receipt bears the signature of Kishore
Pandit. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that a total amount
of Rs.54,22,000/- has been received from the customers of the company
but only Rs.7,000/- has been deposited in the account of the company
and the receipts have been forged. A First Information Report was
lodged at police station Industrial Area, Dewas where crime no.246/16
was registered under sections 420, 406 r/w section 34 of the IPC and
thereafter sections 408, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC were added. The
opinion of examiner, hand writing expert was obtained. After
investigation matter was put to trial. After recording evidence adduced
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6314
3 CRA-14017-2023
by the prosecution, trial court acquitted the appellants from the charges
recording the finding in para-89 of the judgment that prosecution could
not prove that Kishore Pandit was bearing the duty of booking cars and
issue receipts. It was also recorded that signature of Kishore Pandit on
the receipts has not been proved. It was also recorded that no evidence
has been adduced that Vikas Jain was working with the company as
salesman.
3. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that trial court
committed error in appreciating the report Ex.P/131 issued by
government scientific expert. Trial court failed to summon and examine
the government scientific expert Mrs.Santoshi Rajput. Trial court
committed error in appreciating the original copy of the money receipts
as reflected at serial no.1 to 25 at para-79 of the impugned judgment
which duly bears signature of accused no.1 Kishore Pandit as cashier.
Trial court committed error in appreciating the evidence available on
record that Kishore Pandit and Vikas Jain were engaged with the
company as cashier and salesman respectively.
4. Heard.
5. Counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer
submitting that trial court has recorded its finding after proper
appreciation of evidence. There is no question to be decided, hence this
appeal be dismissed.
6. Now we are considering the case in hand. This case arises on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6314
4 CRA-14017-2023
the final report submitted by the Police Station Industrial Area, Dewas.
Accordingly, provisions of sub section (4) of section 378 are not
applicable but the applicable provisions are sub section (3) of section
378 and proviso to section 372 of the Cr.P.C and the matter is being
considered in these provisions. In para-44 of the judgment, the evidence
of Rajesh (PW/5) is discussed who has stated that Vikas Jain has
arranged trial of Ertiga car and he has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on
24.03.2016. It is his testimony that only Rs.1,000/- was found in the
record of the show room. Similarly, other witness including Arjun
Pawar (PW/21) has been discussed.
7. In the light of prosecution evidence arguable points have been
raised and material on record discloses deeper scrutiny and
reappreciation /reconsideration of evidence. Accordingly, this is a fit
case where leave to appeal should be granted. Accordingly, leave is
granted. This matter has been registered as criminal appeal. Office is
directed to issue bailable warrants of Rs.10,000/- each against the
respondents No.2 & 3.
Matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
