CRM NO. A-667-MA OF 2008(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM NO. A-667-MA OF 2008(O&M) DECIDED ON : 18.10.2011 Ravi Mayor ...Appellant versus Kuldip Mayor ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 05.02.2008 passed by Shri Jaspinder Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide which complaint made by Ravi Mayor against Kuldip Mayor under Section 500 IPC was dismissed. The complainant/appellant has made complaint against the accused/respondent on the allegations that the complainant was a partner in a firm under the name and style of M/s Watkins Mayor and Company Toka Works, Jalandhar City. The complainant had been managing the entire business of the said firm which was engaged in the manufacturing of chaff CRM NO. A-667-MA OF 2008(O&M) -2- cutting knives which are used in chaff cutting machines. The firm had a great reputation for the manufacturing of High Class Chaff cutting knives. The complainant was known as one of the leading industrialists in Jalandhar city and was widely respected in the society. The accused is the son of the complainant. He and his brother wanted to grab the business of complainant and with mala fide intention, got a false case registered against the appellant and one Devinderjit Singh in Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar vide FIR No. 17 dated 10.02.1986 under Sections 379/452/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. On registration of the case, the complainant had to seek anticipatory bail. After investigation, complainant and Devinderjit Singh were put to trial and they were acquitted vide judgment dated 03.10.2000 passed by Shri H.S.Grewal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. The factum of registration of the case became talk of the town. The prestige of the complainant has been lowered in the eyes of public. Hence, complaint under Section 500 IPC was filed. After going through the preliminary evidence, the accused was ordered to be summoned. On his appearance, he was released on bail. After finding a prima facie case, notice under Section 500 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. CRM NO. A-667-MA OF 2008(O&M) -3- In order to prove her case, complainant himself stepped into the witness box as CW-1 and examined Nand Kishore as CW-2 and thereafter, closed the evidence. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he pleaded false implication. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, found that the complainant has failed to complete the ingredients of Section 500 IPC and consequently, the accused/respondent was acquitted vide judgment dated 05.02.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 05.02.2008, the complainant/appellant has filed the present appeal. Along with the main appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 214 days has been filed. Another application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C has been filed for leave to appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file carefully. So far as the delay of 214 days in filing the appeal is concerned, the appellant has pleaded that certified copy of the judgment dated 05.02.2008 was prepared on 20.02.2008 and the same was supplied on 31.03.2008. The appeal was filed on CRM NO. A-667-MA OF 2008(O&M) -4- 09.05.2008 but the Registry raised objections and the paper- book was returned on 19.07.2008. Thereafter, the paper-book was misplaced in the office of learned counsel for the appellant as the same was kept in the files of decided cases inadvertently. The paper-book was traced on 19.11.2008 and the present appeal is being filed without any delay. The appeal is stated to have been filed within limitation and there is delay in refiling the appeal stands condoned. The said delay stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application. So far as the application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C is concerned, in my view the same cannot be accepted. The learned trial Court has stated that even the FIR which is stated to be registered against the complainant has not been produced. The trial Court has reached to a definite conclusion that ingredients of Section 500 IPC are not made out. Regarding the reputation of the appellant, it has been observed by the trial Court that he is a chronic litigant. In the year 1987, a decree was passed against him by the court of Shri S.S.Hundal, the then Sub Judge, Jalandhar restraining him from interfering in the working of the factory. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were also initiated against him and the factory was got attached. The order of attachment was set-aside by the court of Shri Balkshish Kaur, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. It has been further observed by the trial Court that a suit for recovery of Rs.57,000/- was filed by the PSEB against the appellant. He also CRM NO. A-667-MA OF 2008(O&M) -5- admitted the fact that he has taken a loan for purchasing a car from Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar, but he denied the fact that car was sold without clearing the debts of the bank. He could not state whether the bank has filed any suit against him and the same was decreed. He has admitted that he has taken a house on rent and eviction order was passed on account of non- payment of rent. No doubt, the appellant has filed CRM No. 59362 of 2008 for producing additional evidence in the shape of FIR, but that application cannot be accepted. No ground for producing the said FIR in the shape of additional evidence before this Court is made out. Moreover, after the acquittal of the accused, the complainant has to make a strong case which is missing in the present case. So, CRM No. 59362 of 2008 stands dismissed. In view of the above, no ground for allowing the application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C is made out. Consequently, the application, as well as the main appeal, is without any merit and both stand dismissed. OCTOBER 18, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE