Criminal Misc. No.224-MA of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.224-MA of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.8.2010 Subhash Chand ..Applicant-Appellant Versus Anand Parkash and others ..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present:- Ms. Rajan Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. H.S.BHALLA, J. Through this application filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicant-appellant has sought permission to file an appeal against judgment dated 14.11.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which he acquitted the accused-respondents for offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The detailed facts have been recapitulated in the judgment of the learned trial Court and in order to avoid repetition, they are not being reproduced in the judgment herein. That apart, the facts discussed by the learned trial court are not being disputed in any manner. Accused were charge sheeted under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Complainant in support of his complaint examined Naresh Chand Shukla as CW1 and himself as CW-2 and thereafter closed his evidence. Accused in defence evidence examined Suresh Kumar DW1, Criminal Misc. No.224-MA of 2010 2 Ashok Kumar DW2 and N.K.Jain, Document Expert DW3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant- appellant at some length and with his able assistance have also gone through the evidence produced by him and the findings recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri meticulously. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant has strenuously argued that the learned trial Magistrate fell in error in acquitting the accused respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt in not taking into consideration the ocular as well as documentary evidence produced by the applicant-appellant in its correct perspective. Learned counsel has further contended that the learned court below fell in error in holding that it was the complainant who himself submitted an affidavit on the basis of which electric connection was transferred in the name of newly floated firm, but he pointed out that the fact is that accused persons hatched a conspiracy in collusion with each other and in pursuance thereof got transferred the electric connection in the name of M/s Vishnu Enterprises by forging signature of complainant on the affidavit furnished by them. Learned counsel has further brought to the notice of this court that the reasoning given by the learned trial Magistrate while dealing with the case is based on misreading and misconstruing the evidence available on the record which is liable to be reversed. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant. We are not convinced to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel. The contentions raised by the learned counsel, in our considered view, have been dealt with by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in a comprehensive manner giving sound reasoning therein on the strength of material available on the record. Criminal Misc. No.224-MA of 2010 3 Having analyzed the entire testimony of the prosecution witnesses available on the record as also the finding recorded by the learned court below, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Magistrate is right in acquitting the accused respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt on the strength of ocular as well as documentary evidence by observing that complainant has failed to prove that the accused in collusion with each other hatched a conspiracy and forged the papers for transfer of the electric connection in newly floated firm, whereas accused by leading and convincing evidence have been able to prove that electric connection has been transferred on the basis of affidavit given by the complainant himself. We are further of the view that approach of the learned trial court in holding that the disputed signatures on the affidavit Ex. CWD/15 are fully tallied with the admitted signatures of the complainant can not at all be said to be erroneous, especially when complainant did not dare to examine any handwriting expert to rebut the report (Ex. DW-3/A) of the Hand writing expert. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that it was a case of forgery of documents and fabrication of his signatures on an affidavit submitted by the accused respondents can not at all be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are further of the view that even if two views are possible, there is no ground to set aside the well reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Scope of appeal under section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, is wide enough to allow the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. However, there are several cases in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the courts must be careful in reversing the judgment or order of acquittal and that the order of acquittal should not be interfered with merely because Criminal Misc. No.224-MA of 2010 4 another view than the one taken by the trial court is possible. In Shingara Singh Versus State of Haryana and another with Subha Singh Versus State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 124 : (2004 Cri LJ 828), it has been held that “ where two views are reasonably possible on the basis of evidence on record, the one that favours the accused must be accepted. It was also held that in any event in a case of acquittal, if the view of the trial court is possible, reasonable view on the basis of evidence on record, interference by the High court may not be justified.” In C. Antony V. K.G. Raghavan Nair reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 182: (2003 Cri LJ 411), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “though the appellate court has full power to re-appreciate evidence but without coming to a definite conclusion that findings by the trial court are perverse, it can not substitute the findings of the trial court by taking a totally different perspective and convict the accused. When such is the possible in case of appeal against acquittal, stronger grounds are needed to interfere with the order of acquittal by exercising the power of revision. In the light of what has been discussed above, we find no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri Accordingly, leave to appeal sought by the applicant-appellant through the instant application moved under Section 378 (4), Code of Criminal Procedure, is declined. ( H.S.BHALLA ) JUDGE 17.8.2010 ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) VK JUDGE