State vs Mahendra Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 7475 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 260/1995

State

----Petitioner Versus Mahendra Kumar

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 339/1995 State

----Petitioner Versus Mahendra Kumar

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chakrawati Singh for Mr. Pradeep Shah

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

19/05/2022

1. The above-numbered S.B. Criminal Revision Petition

No.260/1995 has been preferred by the petitioner-State against

the order dated 31.07.1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (Churu) ('trial court') in Criminal

Original Case No.354/1986, whereby the learned trial court has

passed an order under Section 250 Cr.P.C. requiring the State

being represented before the learned trial court by the then

District Collector, Churu to pay to the acquitted person (Mahendra

Kumar-respondent herein) an amount of Rs.4,500/- as

(2 of 5) [CRLR-260/1995]

compensation; such compensation amount was ordered to be

deposited before the learned trial court by 02.09.1995, and upon

such deposition, the compensation (fine) amount shall be

disbursed to the acquitted person (Mahendra Kumar); however,

upon any failure in this regard on the part of the State, the then

District Collector, Churu was ordered to undergo 30 days' simple

imprisonment, in lieu of such failure; the said direction, as per the

said impugned order, was issued, while noticing that the

prosecution was initiated by the State against the acquitted

person (Mahendra Kumar-respondent herein) without any cogent

factual and legal basis/foundation, and thus, as per the learned

trial court, the State was held liable to compensate the

aforementioned acquitted person.

2. The above-numbered S.B. Criminal Appeal No.339/1995 has

been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated

25.05.1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Rajgarh (Churu) in Case No.354/86, whereby the

accused-respondent-Mahendra Kumar was acquitted of the

charges against him for the offences under Sections 264, 265 and

266 IPC, while noticing that the then Officer-in-charge, Police

Station, Rajgarh (Churu) has filed a complaint (Istagasa) against

the said acquitted person before the learned trial court, without

any cogent factual and legal foundation. Vide the same impugned

judgment, it was thus observed that the interest of justice would

be met, if the State through the then SHO (officer-in-charge),

Police Station, who was the concerned investigating officer in the

present case, shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the acquitted

person (Mahendra Kumar).

(3 of 5) [CRLR-260/1995]

2.1 Since the concerned SHO/investigating officer was not

present before the learned trial court on the date of passing of the

impugned judgment i.e. 25.05.1995, the necessary summon was

directed to be issued to him, so as to procure his presence before

the learned trial court, to show cause as to why the compensation

to the tune of Rs.5,000/- be not directed to be paid by the said

SHO/investigating officer.

3. Learned Pubic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State

(petitioner & appellant) that the report was received on

03.03.1986 by the concerned authority regarding the sale of

Doda-post (poppy husk) at the Excise Office, which was being

made with defective measurement [while using defective Kanta

(Taraju)] by the concerned salesman (Mahendra Kumar- acquitted

person); it was also reported that the said salesman was selling

the said article below the government price; embezzlement during

such sale by the concerned salesman was also alleged.

3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that on the basis

of the aforementioned information, a case was registered by the

Officer-in-charge, Police Station, Rajgarh, against Mahendra

Kumar (the concerned salesman) for the offences under Sections

264, 265 and 266 IPC, and the consequential complaint was also

filed for the said offences before the learned trial court; upon the

said charges levelled in the aforementioned complaint being

denied by Mahendra Kumar (accused therein), he was made to

stand the trial.

3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that though the said

Mahendra Kumar was having a license for the sale of Doda-post

and he was selling it at the government shop, but he had

committed illegality by weighing less the product while selling the

(4 of 5) [CRLR-260/1995]

same. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, it was a fit case for

conviction of the said accused Mahendra Kumar. Learned Public

Prosecutor however, submits that the learned trial court without

taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances

of the case and without duly appreciating the evidence placed on

record before it, acquitted the said Mahendra Kumar from all the

charges levelled against him.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Mahendra

Kumar opposes the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the

State, and while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal

and the impugned order imposing of fine (compensation) passed

by the learned trial court, submits that the learned trial court,

before passing the said impugned judgment and order has taken

into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the

case as well as duly analyzed the evidence placed on record

before it by both the sides, and thus, such a well reasoned

speaking judgment does not call for any interference by this

Court; more particularly, the complaint (Ishtgasa) itself was found

to be without any cogent factual and legal foundation.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds

that the learned trial court in the impugned judgment of acquittal

has rightly recorded a finding that the prosecution has miserably

failed to prove its case against respondent-Mahendra Kumar, on

any count, more particularly when there was a clear absence of

the cogent evidence in support of the prosecution case. The

learned trial court has also recorded the illegality committed by

the concerned investigating officer, who did not follow the due

procedure as laid down under the law, while making the

investigation, and thus, on that count alone, the impugned

(5 of 5) [CRLR-260/1995]

judgment of acquittal deserves to be upheld; more particularly,

when there was no necessary and appropriate order given the

competent court for conducting such investigation, and thus, the

investigation so made in the present case, was of no consequence.

6. The concerned investigating officer, as per the learned Public

Prosecutor as well as the impugned order dated 31.07.1995, has

already expired, and thus, the strictures passed against him by

the learned trial court coupled with the imposition of fine

(compensation) in question, which was ordered to be implemented

against the State, could not be taken any further; it is also a

matter of record that the said order of imposition of fine

(compensation) has not been implemented so far.

7. Resultantly, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition

No.260/1995 is allowed, while quashing and setting aside the

impugned order 31.07.1995 of deposition and payment of fine

(compensation); however, in view of the aforesaid observations

and looking into the well reasoned speaking judgment dated

25.05.1995 acquitting the respondent-Mahendra Kumar,

S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 339/1995 is dismissed. All pending

applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court

below be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

49-50-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)