IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.347 of 2001 Date of decision: 01.04.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Amar Nath Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned CJM, Bilaspur dated 19.3.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 406 and 420 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a report was lodged with the police by one Avtar Singh Chandel on 29.12.1993 at 11.00 AM, alleging that he had paid a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs to respondent on 14.12.1989 for purchase of the shares which shares were to be purchased by the respondent in the name of the complainant. The share certificates were not issued in favour of the complainant after lapse of considerable time and, therefore, he Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 lodged a report with the police in regard to misappropriation and cheating, on which a case was registered leading to filing of Challan against he respondent. He was tried by the learned trial Court under Section 406/420 IPC, which resulted in his acquittal. Heard. The submissions of the learned Law Officer for the State were that there were sufficient evidence on record to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant and as such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are liable to be set aside. I have gone through the evidence of the prosecution in detail. The complainant was examined as PW-6. In his statement, he has stated that the respondent had come to him on 13.11.1989 and a meeting was called which took place on 14.12. 1989. At that time, according to the plaintiff, the Directors of the Company, namely Bidhi Singh and Manorma Devi were also present apart from the wife of the respondent. The complainant has not stated specifically that he paid a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs to the respondent in the presence of the two witnesses mentioned above. He simply stated that he had to purchase shares worth Rs.3.00 lacs for which the accused issued receipt Ex.PW-4/A which bears his signatures and there were witnesses also to the said receipts. He did not state that this amount was paid to the respondent in the presence of the witnesses and then the receipt was executed. He also did not state as to who were the witnesses to the said receipts. The relevant witnesses, if any, were the directors Bidhi Singh and Manorma Devi. The said Bidhi Singh and Manorma Devi had not been examined by the prosecution to prove that any amount was paid to the respondents in their presence. The witnesses to the receipt 3 Ex.PW-4/A are namely, Malu Ram and Nanak Chand. Only Nanak Chand has been examined as PW-2 who simply stated that the receipt Ex.PW-2/A bears his signatures. He did not at all state that the receipts had been issued after receipt of the money. There are some other peculiar facts of the case. The statement of the complainant suggests that he had some litigation with the respondent and several disputes have arisen in view of the litigation in between the parties. The payment in question was made on 14.12.1989 though even the complainant himself is silent. There is nothing on record to show that he had sent any notice to the respondents to give him the shares out of the money taken from him or he ever wrote to the company for issuance of shares. He lodged the FIR with the police on 29.12.1993 after a lapse of more than three years and there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the complainant had given the amount to the respondent. The findings recording by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, it follows that there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents arte discharge. 1st April, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J (SD S)