Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jaiprakash on 29 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27336
1 MCRC-4462-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 29 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4462 of 2017
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
JAIPRAKASH
Appearance:
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 378(3) for leave to appeal has been filed
by the State against the order dated 13.01.2017 passed in case No.489/2015 by
learned JMFC, Bhind whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges under
Sections 403 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.06.2013, based on
information received from an informer, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing
registration number M.P.06 M.B.1530, chassis number MRLKC13ED9CK00602,
and engine number KC13ED9GK00577 was seized from the possession of the
accused, Jayprakash Singh. Efforts were made to ascertain the ownership of the
said seized vehicle; however, no information regarding its owner could be
obtained. Upon interrogation, the accused failed to produce any documents
relating to the motorcycle. Consequently, after completion of the investigation,
Istgasa No. 04/2013 was registered, and a charge-sheet was filed before the court
against the accused. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence
adduced by both sides, acquitted the accused of all charges.
3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in paragraph 07 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27336
2 MCRC-4462-2017
impugned judgment, the learned trial court, while appreciating the evidence, has
treated the Rojnamcha Sanha (daily diary entry) prepared during the course of
police investigation as duly proved, which, in itself, substantiates the correctness
of the investigative proceedings carried out by the police. Further, in paragraph 08
of the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has observed that, in light of
Explanation 2 to Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to establish
that the movable property alleged to have been misappropriated was known to
belong to a specific owner, which was duly proved. It is further submitted that the
learned trial court, while disbelieving the prosecution evidence, has erroneously
passed the judgment of acquittal, despite the fact that the prosecution had
successfully proved the entire case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the
impugned judgment is perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and liable to
be set aside.
4. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned judgment.
5. Learned trial court, after appreciating the entire evidence, recorded a
categorical finding that the ownership of the seized vehicle could not be
established. The prosecution failed to produce any document or witness to prove
that the vehicle in question was owned by any particular person or that it had been
misappropriated by the respondent. In absence of such proof, the essential
ingredients of Section 403 IPC (dishonest misappropriation of movable property
belonging to another) are not fulfilled.
6. Explanation 2 to Section 403 IPC makes it clear that it must be shown
that the movable property alleged to have been misappropriated belonged to some
person other than the accused. In the present case, there is no evidence to establish
ownership of the vehicle or that it was obtained through dishonest means. Mere
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27336
3 MCRC-4462-2017
possession of the motorcycle without ownership papers, in the absence of
evidence of theft or wrongful appropriation, cannot constitute an offence under
Section 403 IPC.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal,
interference is warranted only when the judgment of acquittal is perverse or
manifestly illegal, or where the view taken by the trial Court is wholly
unsustainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has
laid down the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in acquittal appeals
including the observations made in a judgment in case of Chandrappa and Ors. v.
State of Karnataka. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415.
8. Upon examination of the impugned judgment, no illegality, perversity, or
material irregularity is found that would justify interference by this Court.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to grant leave
to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by the learned trial
court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any
perversity.
10. Accordingly, the petition seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
