CR.RA/39119/1993 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 391 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== HARSHAD VISHVANATH RAVAL - Applicant(s) Versus SHIVRAM MOTIRAM PATEL & 2 & 2 - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR NS SHETH for Applicant(s) : 1, MR JM BAROT for Respondent(s) : 1, UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2, MR IM PANDYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 3, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 18/06/2008 CR.RA/39119/1993 2/7 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.3.1992 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, in Chief Case No.22 of 1989 acquitting the respondents - accused from the charge of offence under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The dispute and controversy in this case relate to parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 753/2 and 753/5 in Unja Town. The applicant herein filed complaint against present respondents No.1 and 2 and one other accused. After investigations under Section 156 (3) with reference to the said complaint, charge- sheet was filed on 7.8.1984, which culminated in Case No.1879 of 1984 and in 1989 it was renumbered as Case No.22 of 1989. During the proceedings, one of the accused Viz. Mr. Joitaram M. Patel expired and proceedings qua him abated. Upon conclusion of the trial and after considering the evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed impugned judgment CR.RA/39119/1993 3/7 JUDGMENT whereby, in absence of sufficient evidence, the respondents - accused came to be acquitted. 3. The applicant had alleged that the respondents - accused including the deceased J.M. Patel had, by fabricating documents, managed to get registered in their name the land in question and thereby wrongfully and illegally acquired ownership of the said lands, whereas in fact the said lands were merely mortgaged. On such allegations, the complaint was lodged by the applicant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that it is not proved that the deed/document is a fabricated or forged deed or any mischief has been committed. It is also held that the document purports to be a conditional sale and resulted into finalization of sale in favour of the respondents - accused. Accordingly, acquittal of the respondents - accused is ordered. Aggrieved by the judgment, applicant preferred this Criminal Revision Application. 4. Mr. N.S. Sheth, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of applicant and he merely submitted that the CR.RA/39119/1993 4/7 JUDGMENT applicant has expired on 7th February, 1998 and the heirs or other legal representatives have not come forward to pursue the matter and have not been brought on record. He also pleaded no instruction, and placed on record copy of the death certificate. No further submissions on merits are made. 5. Further, the cause list shows that the respondent No.2 has also expired and notice of Rule has, therefore, remain unserved qua him. Mr. J.M. Barot, learned advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1, Mr. I.M. Pandya, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is for the respondent No.3 - State. Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Pandya, learned A.G.P. for the respondent No.3 have, except supporting the judgment, not made any other submissions on merits. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the Revision Application. It comes out from the judgment that the learned Court has discussed at length the deposition of the witnesses, in CR.RA/39119/1993 5/7 JUDGMENT particular, the deposition of Mr. Natwarlal Shankarlal and Mr. H.M. Patel. The said witnesses have pleaded ignorance in respect of the allegations made by the applicant and stated that they did not have knowledge about the details of the transaction. The said witnesses, the learned Court has recorded, not given out anything to support the case of the applicant - complainant. As discussed by the learned Court, same is the position as regards the deposition of the Talati/Mantri. It has, hence, been found by the Court that no material to support the allegations of the applicant has come out. The Court has also recorded that there was no dispute as to the fact that the lands were, since long, in possession of the respondents - accused. Besides considering the oral evidence, the learned Court has, in detail, also discussed the documentary evidence including the mortgage deed/ Exhibit 58. The learned Court has come to the conclusion that the said document is in the nature of conditional sale and it is clearly stipulated therein that if the amount was repaid on or before Samvat 2019 (Jeth Vad - 9) then the property can be reclaimed but thereafter, the sale CR.RA/39119/1993 6/7 JUDGMENT would become final if the amount was not repaid by the stipulated day. The learned Court has discussed about the signature in the documents. It is also recorded that undisputedly the amount was not repaid by the stipulated day and the sale had thus become final. On detailed evaluation of entire evidence, the learned Court has replied all issues in negative and held that it has not been proved that the document was forged or fabricated by respondents - accused or any mischief was played with the said document. The learned Court has also noticed that the dispute was essentially of civil nature and the allegations were not proved. The learned Court, therefore, acquitted the respondents - accused. 7. The scope of revision application and interference with the judgment of acquittal is very limited and unless the conclusions are perverse or wholly contrary to clinching evidence, this Court would not interfere with and would not upset the judgment acquitting the accused and it is not justified for the higher Court to interfere with acquittal judgment in Revision Application merely CR.RA/39119/1993 7/7 JUDGMENT because another view could be possible. Furthermore, in this particular case, the applicant has not been able to show anything erroneous or incorrect in the judgment. The applicant's advocate also submitted that the applicant has expired and his heir or other legal representatives have not come forward to prosecute this application and they have not been impleaded. The respondent No.2 also has expired. 8. Hence, on the overall consideration, this Court is of the view that the judgment is not perverse and incorrect, so as to justify any interference in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. 9 Hence, the application fails and is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged. (K.M.THAKER, J.) ynvyas