Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Virendra Bhandari vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14969) on 20 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:14969]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1679/2022
Virendra Bhandari S/o Dr. Dal Jeet Bhandari, Aged About 40
Years, 392, Ambamata Scheme, Master Colony, Udaipur, Prop.
M/s Bhandari Distributors, 172-173, Madri, Industrial Area No. 3,
Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. D.L. Gandhi, President and Director Vadilal Industries
Ltd., Udaipur.
3. Vishal Shruti, Vice President and Director Vadilal
Industries Ltd., Udaipur.
4. Rakesh Rao, Area Manager, Vadilal Industries Ltd.,
Udaipur.
5. Virendra Nyati, Divisional Manager, Vadilal Industries Ltd.,
Udaipur.
6. Ratan Choudhary, Manager, Vadilal Industries Ltd.,
Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Deepika Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
Mr. Sanjay Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
20/03/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-
complainant under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal
of the accused-respondents No.2 to 6 from offence under Sections
420, 406, 120-B IPC vide judgment dated 31.05.2022 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, South No.1, Udaipur in Case
No.1226/2010 (CIS No.4444/2014).
[2025:RJ-JD:14969] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-1679/2022]
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant
filed a complaint against the accused-respondents before the
Police Station Pratap Nagar, Udaipur in respect of offence
committed under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC.
On the said complaint, FIR was registered and after usual
investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-
respondents. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance and
framed the charge against the accused-respondents for offence
under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC. The accused-respondents
denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as four witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter,
statements of accused-respondents were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined as DW-1 and
only one document was produced.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 31.05.2022 acquitted the accused-
respondents No.2 to 6 from offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-
B IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted
that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting
the accused-respondents from the aforesaid offence despite the
fact that there is ample evidence regarding cheating committed by
the respondents with the appellant. It is submitted that there was
a contract agreement between the firms of the appellant and the
accused-respondents but, the accused-respondents by violating
the contract had committed offence for criminal breach of trust.
The learned trial court did not consider the evidence as well as
[2025:RJ-JD:14969] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-1679/2022]
and aforesaid aspects of the matter in its right perspective and
wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents from the aforesaid
offences. Thus, the impugned judgment being per se illegal
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-
respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced for the
aforesaid offences.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer
made by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the
learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents
after due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment of acquittal
passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not
warrant any interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the trial.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned trial 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-respondents beyond all reasonable
doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-
respondent from offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of
Tripura, :2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier
[2025:RJ-JD:14969] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-1679/2022]
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
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 against acquittal except that while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view
the position that the 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
[2025:RJ-JD:14969] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-1679/2022]
by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the
acquittal may not be interfered with.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant 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 order passed by the learned trial court is detailed
and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
159-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
