Punjab-Haryana High Court
Adbul Latif vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165736
2023:PHHC:165736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207
CRM-A-760-MA-2015(O&M)
Date of Decision:16.12.2023
ABDUL LATIF
...APPLICANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr.Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Satyendra Chauhan, Advocate for
Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for respondent no.2.
-*-
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
CRM-14581-2015
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in
filing the accompanying application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed
and delay of 136 days in filing the aforesaid application is condoned.
CRM-A-760-MA-2015
This instant application under Section 378(4) CrPC is preferred
against the order of acquittal dated 19.09.2014 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which, two appeals i.e., Criminal Appeal No.82
of 06.06.2012 and Criminal Appeal No.89 of 30.07.2012 were decided and
respondent no.2 was acquitted. The said appeals were filed by respondent no.2
against conviction and the applicant-appellant for enhancement of sentence
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165736
2023:PHHC:165736
respectively against the common order dated 17.05.2012 passed by the learned
Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla in Criminal Complaint
no.36 of 08.09.2004, whereby, respondent no.2 was convicted under Sections
468, 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC.
2. The minimal facts as necessary for disposing this application are
that the above-said complaint was filed by the applicant against respondent
no.2 and three other co-accused. The main contention was that respondent no.2
along with other co-accused sold the truck bearing no. PJI-899, belonging to
the applicant to Mohinder Singh without his knowledge and by forging
documents of the said truck (affidavit and form no.29) and also embezzled the
sale consideration therefrom. Thereby, respondent no. 2 along with other co-
accused cheated the complainant by hatching a criminal conspiracy and caused
wrongful loss to the applicant by forging his signatures.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and
after perusing the record with his able assistance, it is clear that after diligent
appreciation of the complete evidence on record, the learned trial Court has
correctly observed that the applicant had failed to prove chain of evidence so as
to lead to conclusion that respondent no.2 and the other co-accused committed
forgery of the documents in question and transferred the truck to Mohinder
Singh (accused no.4). Moreover, as per handwriting expert's report, it was not
proved whether applicant's signatures were forged by respondent no.2 and
other co-accused qua the documents relating to the said truck. Furthermore, the
alleged buyer (accused no.4) of the said truck was not examined. Therefore, the
learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur has correctly set aside the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165736
2023:PHHC:165736
above-mentioned order of conviction against respondent no.2, thereby
acquitting him.
4. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal
on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that
where two views are possible and out of the two, one point towards the
innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail
over the other, pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the
additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their
demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution
witnesses. (See H.D. Sundara and others Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal
Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on 26.09.2023; Kali Ram v. State of H.P.,
1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, (2007)
4 SCC 415). A Division bench of this Court in the judgment passed in State of
Haryana Vs. Ankit and others bearing No. CRM-A No.3 of 2022 decided on
06.07.2023, has held that presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on
the acquittal of accused by the trial Court.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any perversity or
illegality in findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, which warrants
interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present application
and hence, the leave to appeal is denied.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
December 16, 2023 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165736
3 of 3
