IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.80 of 2010 RAMSHARAN ROY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 29.09.2010 This is a application for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 23.7.2010 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger passed in Complaint Case No. 287C of 2005 whereby the O.P. No.2, who was tried for the charges under Sections 465, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been acquitted of the charge. The case of the petitioner/complainant was that the O.P. No.2 was an insurance agent and that on 13.01.1991 he (petitioner/complainant) obtained one insurance policy and after completion of the proposal form by the O.P. No.2 he (petitioner/complainant) paid a sum of Rs. 1139 and 40 paise for which a receipt was granted by the O.P. No.2. Further allegation of the petitioner/complainant was that subsequently he made payment of quarterly premium and that after some time the payment was converted into a half-yearly premium which he (petitioner/complainant) continued to pay to the O.P. No.2 and for all the payments, the O.P. No.2 gave him payment receipts. It was further alleged that after accepting several payments the O.P. No.2 stopped taking payment. Therefore, the petitioner/complainant got suspicion and he verified the matter in the Dumka Insurance Branch Office where, on obtaining a computer generated statement of the office he (petitioner/complainant) learnt that the deposit of the first premium only had been made by the O.P. No.2 in the office and that subsequent payment as was deposited in the branch office. The petitioner/complainant stated that he demanded his money back whereupon the O.P. No.2 gave assurances to return the money back but on 16.4.2005 he finally refused to return 2 the money. The petitioner/complainant alleged that the O.P. No.2 received payment of Rs. 41004/- in all as payments towards several quarterly and half-yearly installments and he did not deposit the same in the branch office and in that manner he cheated the petitioner/complainant. During trial the complainant examined himself as a witness but he did not examine any other witnesses in support of his case. The accused examined four witnesses as defense witnesses who all stated to have taken insurance policy from the O.P. No.2 and they all stated that they had made by the first premium to the O.P. No.2 and thereafter, as the usual practice was, they deposited the subsequent premium themselves. The petitioner/complainant stated in his evidence that he had made payment of several installments to the O.P. No.2. he also produced the receipts granted with respect to the first premium as deposited under the proposal for the insurance policy and many other receipts which is said to have been granted to him. Regarding the payment of subsequent premium from 1991-2005, on analysis of the documentary evidence, the learned trial court has found that the writing on the first receipt which is undoubtedly genuine receipt, is different from the writing on the subsequent receipts produced by the petitioner/complainant. The learned trial court considered that the receipt with regard to the payment is not lawfully proved by the petitioner/complainant. Some facts are peculiar in this case. The petitioner/complainant obtained the policies by making the first installment on 13.1.1991 and thereafter he continued to make payment of quarterly and thereafter, half-yearly installment up to the year 2005. When on getting suspicion he went to insurance branch office and on 3 verification he learnt that no deposit excepting the first installment had been made in the office. It is curious that the petitioner/complainant had gone on making payment of quarterly and half-yearly installment to the O.P. No.2 but he never cared to verify in the office regarding the status of payment made by him. The learned trial court also considered that one of the terms in the policies was a money back policy for returning of 25 per cent of insured sum in five years and that in that context also after expiry of five years, the petitioner/complainant was expected to make verification about the return of 25 per cent insured money but he did not do it within the period. The petitioner/complainant says that he made several payments during the period of 14 years for which the O.P. No.2 had granted him receipt but there is no other person to corroborate the complainant that any such payment was made by him or any receipt was granted by the O.P. No.2. Considering all the facts and circumstances and the infirmity in the case of prosecution, the learned trial court came to find that the petitioner/complainant failed to prove the charge beyond doubt, hence the trial court acquitted the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no perversity or illegality in the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, I find no merit in this case to make any interference. Accordingly, this SLA is dismissed. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-