IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.41 of 2010 GHURAN SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For O.P.No.2 & 3 :Mr.Ratnakar Jha, Advocate. 4. 14.09.2010 This SLA was heard at the stage of admission. Both the parties have appeared and they were heard. Petitioner-complainant filed Complaint Case No. 121 of 2001 for the offence u/s 420 IPC. He alleged that the O.P.No.2 who is Up-Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat came to his house and he told the petitioner-complainant that Government scheme for grant of loan of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) for construction of house has been announced and he asked him to give his LTI on stamp paper and Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) cash for arranging that loan and that on being so asked, the petitioner-complainant and his son gave their LTI on stamp paper and cash of Rs.2,000/- to the O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 stated that the loan would be sanctioned in 10 days. After 10 days when no loan was sanctioned, the petitioner-appellant went to Basopatti Block Office to verify the matter and then he learnt that any application on behalf of the petitioner-complainant had not been filed in the Block Office. The petitioner-complainant further alleged that he went to the house of O.P.no.2 and demanded his money and stamp paper with LTI but the O.P.nmo.2 abused him and did not return the same and, hence, the complaint was filed. In this case the petitioner-complainant examined three witnesses before the trial court. P.W.1 Ram Sagar Devi is 2 petitioner-complainant’s wife. P.W.2 Ghuran Singh was the complainant himself and P.W.3 Ghutar Singh was complainant’s son. Thus, all these three witnesses were the complainant and the family members and no independent witness was examined. While considering the evidence of witnesses, the learned trial court considered that the witnesses were highly interested ones. It was also considered that one independent witness Shyam Sundar Singh had been produced during enquiry, but he was not produced for his examination before the trial court. The complainant did not furnish any explanation for his non-examination. It was also considered that there were several contradictions and infirmities in the statement of witnesses produced by the complainant. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he and his son had put LTI on stamp paper but in his evidence before framing of charge he deposed that the LTI was put on blank paper, not on stamp paper. Learned trial court also considered that the petitioner-complainant alleged that he had put his LTI on blank stamp paper but his wife Ram Sagar Devi (P.W.1) stated in her evidence that before obtaining the LTI, the O.P.No.2 had written something on the stamp paper though she stated that it was not read over to the complainant. Thus, it is not the case of putting LTI on blank stamp paper as alleged by the complainant, but according to the P.W.1, writings already existed on the stamp paper before putting of LTI. Before the trial court, the defence of O.P.No.2 proved that the O.P.No.2 had filed Title Suit No.10 of 2002 against the petitioner-complainant. In the Title Suit the pleadings of the 3 O.P.No.2 was that the petitioner-complainant had executed an agreement to sell his 18 kathas of land for Rs.55,000/- in order to meet the expenses of his daughter’s marriage and that at the time of agreement, Rs.45,000/- was taken by the petitioner- complainant and Rs.10,000/- was to be paid to him subsequently at the time of execution of the sale-deed. The O.P.No.2 alleged that subsequently when he approached the petitioner-complainant for execution of sale-deed after receiving Rs.10,000/-, the petitioner- complainant resiled from the agreement to sell and that, therefore, the Title Suit was filed by the O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 alleged before the trial court that in order to grab Rs.45,000/- , as taken under the agreement to sell, the petitioner-complainant filed complaint petition with false allegations. While considering the evidence, the trial court has considered that the complainant was unable to say about the date, month and year, when his LTI was taken on blank stamp paper and date, month and year when he had enquired the matter in the Block Office and the date, month and time when he had gone to demand the stamp paper back from the O.P.No.2 . It was considered by the trial court that this inability of the complainant in disclosing the date, month and year of any of these incidents was a serious flaw in the case of prosecution. The learned trial court also considered that the complainant alleged that he had entrusted his LTI on paper and Rs.2,000/- for obtaining loan of Rs.50,000/- for construction of house, but any such Government scheme was not available at that time. The learned trial court also considered this aspect that the complainant stated in is evidence 4 that he suspected that the O.P.No.2 will use the document for usurping his land. It was considered that when the petitioner- complainant had not executed any agreement to sell, how he could express any such apprehension. It was considered that the evidence indicated that the petitioner-complainant was in know of the fact of agreement to sell and that, therefore, he stated such thing to make a defence. Thus considering the evidence and also considering that the petitioner-complainant withheld the independent witness, the learned trial court came to find that the prosecution case was not proved, hence, the O.P Nos. 2 and 3 who were put on trial were acquitted of the charges. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed by the trial court in its judgment, I fail to find any illegality in the impugned judgment. There is no scope to make any interference with the judgment passed by the learned trial court. In the result, this SLA is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Jay/ (C. M . Prasad, J.)