Crl. Revision No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : March 10, 2011 Surender Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus Prem Chand ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 27.4.2010, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, by virtue of which the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this petition is that the complainant is running a shop in the name and style of M/s Arya Ghee Bhandar and he had kept the accused-respondent as his worker. On 25.5.1998, the wife of the complainant fell ill and as such he has to look after her three months. In the meantime, the accused being the Manager of the firm of the complainant looked after the work of the shop. There was a Crl. Revision No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) 2 stock of ` 11,51,221/- as on 1.6.1998 and goods worth ` 2,10,074/- were purchased during the period from 1.6.1998 to 30.9.1998. The accused sold goods worth ` 6,98,424.50/- to different persons and kept the money with him and misappropriated the same. The accused also took away cash amount of ` 38,892/-. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner- complainant filed a complaint. After preliminary evidence, the accused- respondent was summoned to face trial for committing the offence under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. To prove his case, the petitioner examined three witnesses. Ultimately, charge was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After closure of the evidence, statement of accused-respondent under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.) was recorded and the accused examined Balram as DW1 in his defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges framed against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Magistrate had ignored the admission of signatures of the accused-respondent on documents Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-146 which pertained to the period during which the wife of the petitioner remained under treatment. He further argued that the learned Magistrate had also not appreciated the statement of PW2 who had categorically deposed that accused-respondent was working as Manager in the shop of the petitioner-complainant and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Having gone through the record, I find that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on the record. It is the case of the complainant that during the period from 1.6.1998 to 3.9.1998 the accused-respondent sold the goods worth ` 6,98,424.50/- to the retailers after issuing forged receipts and did not deposit the said amount in the Crl. Revision No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) 3 account of the complainant, but he had not disclosed the name of any of the person to whom the said goods were allegedly sold by the accused- respondent nor any witness had been examined by him in this regard. In the opinion of this Court present is the case of commercial transaction for which complainant could have filed the suit for rendition of account or recovery of outstanding amount. Ordinarily, civil/commercial dispute should not be permitted to be converted into the criminal offence. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Akalu Ahir reported in 1973(3) SCC 583 in para 8 has observed as under: - “...........the revision from an order of acquittal, should appropriately refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature which has resulted in grave failure of justice. .............It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court in the court of trial, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct the retrial of the acquittal accused persons. From the very nature of this power, it should be exercised in exceptional cases and with great care and caution. Trials are not to be lightly set aside when such order expose the accused persons to a fresh trial with all its consequential harassment. This matter is not res integra and had indeed been dealt with by this court at least in the four cases noticed by the High Court. ...............It makes all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering re-trial. No doubt, in the opinion of this court no criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies for attracting the High Court's power of ordering retrial can be laid down. This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicated the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. i. Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused; Crl. Revision No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) 4 ii. Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wishes to produce; iii. Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the Trial Court to the inadmissible; iv. Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court; and v. Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.” These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.” Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, as such there is no justification for this Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to reach the finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of any manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 15, 2011 Anand