Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India vs Mahavir Prasad And Anr ... on 29 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:24736]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 361/2005
Union Of India through Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Mahavir Prasad S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Maheshwari, R/o
Baori, PS Pander, District Bhilwara.
2. State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Mathur, UOI
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
29/05/2024
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-UOI against the judgment
dated 29.09.2003, passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions
Judge No.1, Bhilwara in Cr. Appeal No.18/2002 whereby the
appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by the accused-
respondent No.1, acquitted him from offences under Sections 409,
477A, 420 IPC and set aside the judgment dated 12.07.2001,
passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in Case
No.381/1997 convicting the accused-respondent No.1 for the
aforesaid offences.
Brief facts of the case are that Superintendent, Post Officer,
Bhilwara submitted a report at Police Station City Kotwali, Bhilwara
to the effect that the accused-respondent No.1, who is employed in
the Postal Department, had committed embezzlement on
08.07.1980. Upon the aforesaid report, a case was registered
[2024:RJ-JD:24736] (2 of 5) [CRLR-361/2005]
against the accused respondent No.1 and after usual investigation,
Police filed charge-sheet against him before the Court concerned.
Thereafter, learned trial court framed charges against the
accused respondent No.1 for offences under Sections 409, 477A,
420 IPC and upon denial of guilt, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 30 witnesses were examined and 131
documents were exhibited. Thereafter, statement of the accused
respondent No.1 was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, the learned trial court framed three issues.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 12.07.2001 convicted and sentenced
the accused-respondent No.1 for aforesaid offences.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused-
respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned appellate
court, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 29.09.2003
and the accused-respondent No.1 was acquitted from the offences
under Sections 409, 477A, 420 IPC. Hence, this revision petition
on behalf of petitioner-UOI against the acquittal of the accused-
respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-UOI has submitted that
there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.1
regarding commission of offence and on the basis of the said
evidence, the learned trial court convicted the accused-respondent
No.1 but the learned appellate court while ignoring the findings of
the trial court, acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 from
offences under Sections 409, 477A, 420 IPC. The learned
appellate court has not considered the evidence and other aspects
of the matter in its right perspective and thereby has committed
[2024:RJ-JD:24736] (3 of 5) [CRLR-361/2005]
grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.1. Thus, the
impugned judgment of appellate court deserves to be quashed
and set aside and the judgment of the trial court convicting and
sentencing the accused-respondent No.1 for the aforesaid offences
ought to have been upheld.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-UOI and perused the
impugned judgment of the appellate court as well as considered
the material available on record.
On perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate court,
it appears that the learned appellate court while passing the
impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the
matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its
right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions &
improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution
has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent No.1
beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the learned appellate
court has rightly set aside the judgment of the trial court and
rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 from offence under
Sections 409, 477A, 420 IPC
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner-UOI has
failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge. The learned appellate court has rightly acquitted the
accused-respondent No.1 from the offences. The order passed by
the learned appellate court is a detailed and reasoned order and
the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, :
2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble
[2024:RJ-JD:24736] (4 of 5) [CRLR-361/2005]
Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has
laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a
judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only
when there are "compelling and substantial reasons",
for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is
a compelling reason for interference. When the trial
Court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents
like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,the
appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of
the trial Court depending on the materials placed.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram
alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,' the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:--
"A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence
of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has
taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in
appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a
view which could not have been taken by the court of
competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled
canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be
reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal."
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an
appeal/revision against conviction on the one hand and acquittal
on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is
no substantial difference between an appeal/revision against
acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal/revision against
acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the
[2024:RJ-JD:24736] (5 of 5) [CRLR-361/2005]
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been
fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court
is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds
well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be
interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
17-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
