The revisional application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah in connection with G.R. Case No. 1336 of 2002, corresponding to T.R. No. 192 of 2002 under Sections 420/ 468/ 467/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the accused person from the charges levelled against them.
The records of the case reflect that the defacto complainant preferred an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah being Case No. 1015C of 2002. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the said complaint preferred by the defacto complainant directed the Officer-in-Charge, Howrah Police Station to investigate the case and as a result of which, Howrah Police Stati
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
on Case No. 107 of 2002 dated 13th August, 2002 was registered for investigation under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the case was subsequently numbered as GR Case No. 1336 of 2002 and in course of trial the case was renumbered as T.R. Case No. 192 of 2002.
The prosecution case in short is that, the defacto complainant purchased 1 cottah 8 chittacks 54 feet in length and 20 feet in width a plot of land from the accused namely, Subhendu Neogi of 43/2, Kamini School Lane, Salkia, Howrah. The said land was registered by way of a deed of sale bearing No. 2382 of 1998 executed on 22th July, 1998.
It was alleged that the accused again on 2nd February, 2000 sold another portion of land within the same holding No. 20, Benaras Road to one Bateswar Rajak and Kapil Rajak including a considerable portion of the complainant's purchased property showing the same as common passage. It was further alleged the accused person on 29th November, 2000 dishonestly and deliberately with an intent to cause wrongful loss to the complainant executed another deed of sale in favour of one Deepika Manna in respect of another portion of the holding No. 20, Benaras Road together with a portion of the complainant's land. Thus the complainant felt that he was cheated as the accused by executing several sale deeds to different persons in respect of the self-same land deprived the complainant and caused wrongful loss to him even after accepting the consideration money.
The Investigating Officer of the case on completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the FIR named accused person for the offences under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said police Report, the Court after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pleased to frame charge against the accused person under Sections 468 /471/ 420/ 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were thereafter read over to the accused person who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses including the defacto complainant and the Investigating Officer of the case, whereas the defence examined none.
After the examination of the prosecution witnesses were over the learned Court fixed date for examination of the accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on completion of the same, fixed date for arguments of the case, as the defence refused to tender any witness in support of its case. On completion of final arguments of the case and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Court by a judgment and order dated 28th March, 2006 was pleased to acquit the accused person from the charges levelled against him.
The learned Trial Court observed that the prosecution by way of documentary evidence relied upon the petition of complaint (Exbt.1), Deed No.1013/2000 (Exbt.2), Deed No.6246/2000 (Exbt.-3), formal FIR (Exbt.4), sketch map of the place of occurrence (Exbt.5) and Deed No.2382/1998 (Exbt.6).
The learned Trial Court took into account the arguments advanced on behalf of the defence that the dispute between the parties are purely of civil nature and no criminal action could have been taken in respect of the factual foundation created by the prosecution. Although the sale deeds were marked as Exbts. 2, 3 and 6, but there is no specific demarcation with sketch map which would reflect that who were the different purchasers in respect of the plot of land.
According to the defence there was no measurement by a surveyor done in course of investigation and the plea of subsequent sale deed being executed in favour of another person including a portion of the land belonging to the defacto complainant has not been established by the prosecution. While dealing with the aforesaid contention the learned Court categorically observed that no case of forgery has been made out as the defacto complainant in his evidence categorically deposed that his signature no where in the sale deeds were forged and the same was corroborated by the Investigating Officer of the case. The Investigating Officer further deposed that there were no documents, in fact, to substantiate that the accused had forged any document and used the same as genuine. In view of the evidence, the learned Court opined that no case of forgery for the purpose of cheating has been made out against the accused person. The learned Trial Court then proceeded to scrutinise the evidence and come to a finding that from the deposition of various witnesses, it is found that civil suit was pending between the parties and the demarcation of the property was the subject matter of the Civil Court. So far as, the materials placed before the Criminal Court is concerned, there is nothing on record to hold that the accused has committed offences of cheating and forgery. After arriving at such finding, the learned Court proceeded to acquit the accused person under Sections 420/468/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon D. Stephens v Nosibolla in Khetrabari Samual vs. State of Orissa reported in (1969) 2 SCC 571 held that the settled principle in respect of cases involving revision against acquittal, are that:
"It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record."
Further in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1963) 1 CrLJ 8, it was pointed out that an interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence.
I have carefully considered the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court while arriving at its finding and I find that the learned Trial Court took into account the oral evidence of all the witnesses, the documents relied upon by the prosecution, the nature of the investigation carried out and thereafter came to the finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove which part of the land has been encroached and as a result of which, the complainant has been deprived. The learned Court also held that no deed has been forged and used as genuine or the signature of the defacto complaint has been forged in any of the deed so relied upon by the prosecution. After assigning such reasons, the learned Court felt that as in evidence, it has come that the disputes between the defacto complainant and the accused person are before the Civil Court and the offence of cheating and forgery not being made out, there is no ground for holding the accused person guilty of the charges and as such acquitted him. The reasons so assigned being based on evidence on record, logical findings and on the settled principle of law, I do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the same.
In the result, the revisional application being CRR 1895 of 2006 is dismissed.
The judgment and order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah is hereby affirmed.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities