1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Chhuttan Vs. Sheo Sahi & Ors. S.B.Cr. Appeal No.93 of 1989 Under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of Shri Hari Prashad Sharma, additional Sessions Judge (special Court, Essential Commodities Act) Jaipur, dated 14.12.1988 in Criminal Appeal No.41/88 (16/88) reversing the judgment of Shri Ramesh Chand Pareek, Judicial Magistrate No.1 Jaipur City, in Criminal Case No.25/81 dated 23.12.1987, and acquitting the accused respondents of the offence under Sections 456, 341 of IPC. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: December 18, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI None present for the accused appellant. Mr. TP Sharma for the accused respondents. Mr. Deen Dayal Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 14th December, 1988, rendered by Special Judge,(Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur whereby the accused respondents Sheo Sahai, Hazari, Tejya and Manglya were acquitted in the offences under Section 456 and 341 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story as unravelled by the complainant Chhuttan, is as under: That the appellant Chhuttan entered into an agreement on 18th of October, 1979 with Smt. Birdi @ Aani W/o Shri Bhori Lal Mali with regard to the purchase of a house in Rs.28,000/-. This house was built in an area of 197.77 sq.yds. Three rooms were 2 constructed on this land, which were surrounded by the boundary wall. It is alleged that he had kept his domestic articles in one room but when on 19th October, 1979 he went there again, he found the lock of the door broken and the domestic articles missing. When he endeavoured to enter in the room, the accused respondents obstructed and ensued quarrel with him. He reported the matter with Police Station Adarsh Nagar on 20th October, 1979 but the police did not take any action. Thereafter, he filed a private complaint in the competent Court, which was sent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. As the police had already given final report in that case which was registered on a complaint earlier, the police gave final report in this case also. The complainant thereafter submitted a protest petition, whereupon the Court recorded the statements of the complainant under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C and took cognizance of the offences under Section 457, 380 and 341 of IPC and proceeded against the accused respondents. Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur city, Jaipur conducted the trial of the case and having found the accused respondents guilty in the offences under Section 456 and 341 of IPC, convicted them and released them on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Aggrieved with the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the accused respondents filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge Jaipur City, Jaipur, which in due course of time appeared before Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) 3 Jaipur City, Jaipur, who set aside the conviction of the accused respondent and acquitted them in the offences under Section 456 and 341 of IPC, as indicated hereinabove. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Hence, heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also scanned the relevant material on record. 4. The learned counsel for the accused respondents has canvassed that the impugned judgment of the lower Court is just and proper which is based on the prosecution evidence and relevant documents and the same does not call for any intervention. He has prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also has canvassed that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the appeal may be dismissed. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and appreciated and re-appreciated the prosecution evidence, it is noticed that the learned Special Judge has properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of L.D. vs. Uttar Pradesh State 1979 (1) SCC, 149 he found the case to be of Civil nature and further observed that the facts of the case did not constitute any criminal offence under Section 456 or house tress-pass. The impugned judgment is found to be cogent and well merited which suffers from no infirmity. I am in unison with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned Special Judge and thus the impugned judgment calls for no interference. 4 7. For these reasons the criminal appeal filed by the appellant Chhuttan against the accused respondents stands dismissed and the finding of acquittal of the accused respondents vide impugned judgment dated 14th December, 1988 is maintained. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. PCG 5 S.B.CR.APPEAL NO.93/1989 CHHUTTAN VS. SHEO SAHI AND ORS. 18.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI None present for the accused appellant. Mr. TP Sharma for the accused respondents. Mr. Deen Dayal Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. For these reasons the criminal appeal filed by the appellant Chhuttan against the accused respondents stands dismissed and the finding of acquittal of the accused respondents vide impugned judgment dated 14th December, 1988 is maintained. (see separate judgment). (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. PCG