1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.250-SBA of 1997. Date of Decision: 10.12.2008 *** State of Haryana .. Appellant Vs. Akhtar Hussain & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Dilbagh Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The State has filed the instant appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh dated 14.9.1996 in respect of the respondents. The respondents were booked in case FIR No.21 dated 25.7.1985 for the offences under Sections 409, 408, 420, 467, 471, 120-B IPC by the State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon with the allegations that they all in conspiracy with each other and by impersonation, forged the record and committed embezzlement of cash amount and fertilizers etc. of the Cooperative Society. According to the prosecution respondent Kallu and Idrish impersonated as Asru and Abdul Razzak and got encashed two cheques of different amount and got fertilizers from the society and Akhtar Hussain and Jaan Mohmmad, being the employees of Society were instrumental in all this forgery. The respondent Akhtar Hussain was charged under Section 408 IPC, while charge under Section 419 IPC was framed against respondent Kallu and Idrish, besides respondent Akhtar Hussain and Jaan Mohd. were charge-sheeted for having committed an offence under Section 468, 471, 120-B IPC. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial, as said above, acquitted the accused-respondents. 2 It is apt to reproduce the observations given by the learned trial court in para No.9 of the impugned judgment, while acquitting the respondents l:- “9. There is force in the contention of ld. Counsel for the accused. In this case preliminary enquiry was conducted by Birpal, Inspector, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon and he came to the conclusion that Sh. Akhtar Hussain and Rajpal are the main accused of this case, but the reasons best known to the prosecution as to why Rajpal has not been arrested in this case. No doubt, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses but the evidence of the Rajpal and Ganga Ram is material one because Rajpal has admitted that the matter was referred to arbitrator and the award has already been given vide which he has also been asked to pay half or the amount alleged to have been misappropriated in this case. Admittedly, PW Asru and Abdul Razak not raised any loan from the Society. This has been done by Akhtar Hussain and Rajpal. The arbitrator has already given award in this case and Akhtar Hussain and Rajpal have been asked to make the payment of the amount alleged to have been mis-appropriated in this case. Once the award has been given by the arbitrator the same is as good as the decree of a civil court and the accused cannot be charge-sheeted for the criminal liability of the same. Taking into consideration the ratio of the authority on which reliance is being placed by the counsel for the accused, I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against any of the accused. I extend the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit them and file be consigned to record room.” The above-said observations made by the learned trial court 3 leaves no manner of doubt that the court while taking into account the fact that the Arbitrator had passed the award and thereby put the burden on respondent Akhtar Hussain and one Rajpal to make the payment of alleged mis-appropriated amount and that the Asru and Abdul Razzak, who were allegedly impersonated by respondent Kallu and Idrish admittedly had not obtained any loan from the society, held that no criminal liability can be fastened upon the respondent-accused. The learned trial court, further while relying upon the case law reported as Janak Raj Vs. State of Punjab 1979 CLR (P&H) 236, concluded that initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused-respondents after the award of the Arbitrator are bad and accordingly after extending benefit of doubt the respondent-accused were rightly acquitted of the aforesaid charges. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial court is neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 10,2008 Jiten