1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 175-MA of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.5.2008 *** Satish Kumar .. Appellant Vs. Angrej Singh & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sham Bhalla, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Crl. Misc. No. 15910 of 2008 This is an application for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned therein the same is allowed and the aforesaid delay of 9 days is condoned. Crl. Misc. No. 175-MA of 2008 The appellant-complainant has sought permission to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.10.2007 rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib in respect of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 and his mother (since died) were summoned by the trial court on the basis of a private complaint preferred at the instance of applicant. They were tried under Sections 448/380 IPC, but ultimately acquitted, leading to the filing of instant application seeking permission to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper book carefully. It emerges out from the impugned judgment that though the complainant alleged that on 15.12.2000 after receiving the possession of the house in dispute through the Ballif of the Court in execution of Court's 2 order dated 6.12.2000, he placed his belongings in the said house and put his lock thereupon, which was allegedly broken by the accused-respondent and his mother (since deceased) and that they also took away his belongings etc from there and when he prevented them from doing so, he was criminally intimidated by respondent Angrej Singh, but no evidence worth of any credence was produced by him to prove the said allegations. Except his own bald statement, which was otherwise found discrepant with evidence of the witnesses produced, no other independent corroboration was brought on record to substantiate the said allegations. The other witnesses produced by the complainant only deposed with regard to taking of possession of the house in dispute and putting a lock thereon by the complainant-applicant and they showed their ignorance whether the articles were placed by the complainant in the house or also that the accused in their presence break open any lock and steal articles. Even otherwise a perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the sole testimony of complainant was also found totally discrepant with the version put forth by his own witnesses with regard to time of his receiving the possession, from whom and in whose presence, leading to the conclusion that the same is untrustworthy and unreliable. The version of the complainant that after receiving the possession of the house in dispute he placed his articles, which were allegedly stolen by the accused, was even doubted by the trial court in absence of any independent corroboration. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate 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, this Court is not inclined to grant leave asked for and the application is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 20,2008 Jiten 3