IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C G ) APPELLANT ‘cjopMPLAINANT QV‘ Aw new CACOUITTAL APPEA} No ' H f OF 2008 $ a“ m p ‘ SngklencF‘i Hanklshan AJmanI Son of Laddha Slngh Ajamanl, aged about 66 year's, Resident of District Durg (C.G.). ‘ VERSUS a Bemetra, . Rajendra Kumar Sharma Son ofv.‘ IM/ Chherka Prasad, Sharma, aged \/ $ about 52 years, Resident of‘Jhal, [b Makhii, Police Station Ranitarai, §ka 1 L I District Durg (CG) R3Esi30NDENT APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (4 F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 -u-- .\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI’SGARH AT BILAS'PUR I (Hon.-Mr Justice Pritihker Diwaker) i : ‘ . i ‘ 1 ' Cr MP No 145 of2008 / a ' e ‘ ‘ 11‘, ' ' x . ‘ } Shrl P P Sahu counsel for the apphcant § § f p AP:PLI§CATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(4) 1 " OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDER (10.12.2009) g H‘eard on admission. I . ’ Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 31 12 2607 passed by JudICIai Magistrate First Class Bemetara District Durg, in Case No 205/2006 acqUitting the respondent/accused of the offence under section 420 of the indian Penal Code 1i r ‘ 2. *Brief facts of the caSe are thaton 2.9.1995 a compiaint case was ii tiled by the applicant/complainant against the respondent alleging that i on 10.13.1993 the respondenthad taken a loan of Rs.,.11,000-and’ 3‘ ‘ _ further_:On 10.1.1994 he had taken a loan of Rs. 12,000 and the .receiptsi thereof were duly executed lt is alleged that even after repeated requests of the applicant the amount was not repaid to him It is alleged that on 871994 a cheque for Rs 10000 and on 10.8.1994 another cheque for Rs. 8,000 were issued in his favour and . when; these two cheques were p‘reSented before theconcerned-bank, ' same. were dishonoured for insufficiency of fund. _ t 3. ln support of his case the complainant has examined three . ' Witnesses Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded WI; under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the plea " q l ‘of innocence and false implication has been taken by him This apart V i l one Sha§nkar Singh Chouhan has also been examined by the defence / in support of its case r :l ‘ ‘ APRLICANT/ ‘ Hanklshan Ajmam son of Laddha Slngh COMPLAINANT ' Ajamam 11‘, ' g i ' x I VERSUS RESPONDENT Rajendra Kumar Sharma son of -2- 4. g Qounsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of material avaiab!e on record, the Court below ought to have convicted the responoent/accused for the offence under Section 420 of the lndian Pen‘al bode and a grave illegality has been committed by it in acquitting him of the charge levelled against him. 5. i L‘éI Singh Deshmukh (CW-1) — Branch Manager District Co- operatnte Centrai Bank Ltd Bemetarta has stated In his eVIdence that one cheque No 210604 was submitted in the bank but on account of insufFCIJency of fund in the account it was returned back. He has stated that;he iwas not aware of the writing of the respondent/accused but on the basiis of specimen signature he couid s'ay that the cheque Was issued by the respondent/accused Similariy, R B Raju (CW 3) Field OfficerHState Bank of India Bemetara has stated that cheque No 862080 was issued by the respondent/accused and the same was bounced for insuffiCiency of fund This Witness has stated that he was not aware as to who had issued the said cheque. Complainant has stated in his statement that Rs. 11,000 and 12,000 were given to the accused on two dates, receipts were also executed but when the said two chefques were presented before the concerned Bank, they were dishonotired. However, both these cheques have not been exhibited by the corripiainant before the Court and after comparing the signature and hand writing, a nnding has been given by the court that recital (of the amount on the cheque does not taliy with the writing of the’oth‘er documents. It is thus clear that the compiainant has failed to prove that the entries made in the cheque were made by the accused. Defence witness gnamely Shankar Singh Chouhan has stated in his statement that theicomplainant was involved in the chit fund game and towards securityjhe used to collect the blank cheques from the participants; This witness has further stated that he too had participated in the said game. He has stated that when the cheques were demanded by him, same we‘re not returned. The evidence available on record reveals that the complainant has failed to prove as to for what purposethe amount was given to the respondent/accused and therefore the e‘ntire case of the complainant becomes doubtful. (J‘ l 1 § ! I ~ g _. 7; £Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant and considering the méteriai available on record as well as the elaborate judgment imiouglned passed by the Court below keeping in view the admitted fact that now the Villagers are llvmg a peaceful life and being very much conscrous of the eXIstIng legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two Views are pos3ible on the ba3is of the eVIdence led by the complainant and the trial Court taking one View favoured the accused reverSIon of the findings of acqUIttal by the appellate Court taking the other possmle View into conSideration is not permissmle in law this Court is of the View that the Judgment Impugned acqUitting the respondent/accused of the offence under section 420 of the lndian Penal Code is Just and proper and does not warrant any interference ‘ by this Court Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant for l registration of appeal against the Judgment of acquittal is hereby j refused. i ‘l sd/- \;\Pritmker Diwaker f Judge ii: v n , L i i i if A1‘ , f i l x