CRR-186-2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-186-2012
Date of decision:-7.12.2017
Food Corporation of India
…Petitioner
Versus
Shri Hira Lal and others
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present : Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate and
Ms.Varsha Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Mikhil Kad, Advocate for
Mr.Ashok Arora, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
Accused Hira Lal, Kasturi Lal, Vinod Kumar, Ashok
Kumar and Smt.Indu faced the trial by Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Ajnala, who vide his judgment dated 22.10.2008 acquitted
the accused of the charge framed against them giving them benefit of
doubt. The appeal preferred against that judgment was dismissed by
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated
2.9.2011. As such, complainant Food Corporation of India has brought
the present revision petition.
Briefly stated facts of the case as per prosecution story are
that District Manager, F.C.I. Amritsar had addressed a written
complaint dated 29.1.1998 to SHO, Police Station Ajnala for the
purpose of registration of case against Hira Lal, Kasturi Lal, Vinod
1 of 7
10-12-2017 18:46:53 :::
CRR-186-2012
2
Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Smt.Indu, partners of the firm M/s Ajnala
Rice Mills, Ajnala on the allegations that a storage-cum-milling contract
was entered into between Food Corporation of India, Amritsar and M/s
Ajnala Rice Mills and in pursuance thereof a quantity of 14328-60-000
quintal of all varieties of paddy were stored and entrusted to the accused
in their mill premises; that as per the agreement, the accused were
responsible for the quality; that the miller was to deliver the resultant
rice as per terms and conditions agreed in the agreement and as per rate
of yield specified by Food Corporation of India. But the accused failed
to deliver the quantity of rice against the balance quantity, in that way
rice to the extent of 96-14-800 quintals had been misappropriated by the
accused, therefore legal action be taken against them.
On the basis of said written complaint, formal FIR No.40
dated 13.3.1998 for the offence under Section 406 IPC was registered
with Police Station Ajnala. The matter was investigated.
After completion of the investigation and other formalities,
challan against the accused was prepared and filed in the Court.
On presentation of challan in the Court of Area Magistrate,
Ajnala copies of documents relied upon in the challan were supplied to
the accused free of costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala finding
that charge for offences under Section 406 IPC was disclosed against the
accused, charge-sheeted the accused for the said offence, to which, they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case was then fixed for
evidence of prosecution.
To bring home guilt to the accused, the prosecution
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 10-12-2017 18:46:54 :::
CRR-186-2012
3
examined as many as ten witnesses as under:
PW1 – Budh Ram, TAI, Food Storage Depot, Rayya
PW2 – Swatantar Kumar, District Food Supplies Officer
PW3 – Darshan Kumar, AG-1, Depot, FCI Jandiala
PW4 – Manmohan Bhutt, AG-II, FCI Depot Ajnala
PW5 – P.S. Lugani, Asstt. Administrator Audits, Patiala
PW6 – Ramesh Chander Gupta, Asstt. Manager, FCI Rani Ka
Bagh, Amritsar
PW7 – Tilak Raj AG-III, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar
PW8 – Manjit Singh, AG-I FCI, Amritsar
PW9 – Amar Singh, Dealing Assistant, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar
PW10 – Lachhman Singh, Retired Police Officer
Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed by Court
order.
Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against
them were put to them but they denied the allegations contending that
they are innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
In defence evidence the accused examined Manmohan
Bhatt, Assistant Grade-I as DW1 and Sh.R.P. Loomba, Advocate,
District Courts, Amritsar as DW2.
After hearing arguments, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Ajnala vide judgment dated 22.10.2008 acquitted the
accused of the charge framed against them. The appeal preferred against
the judgment dated 22.10.2008 was also dismissed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 2.9.2011,
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 10-12-2017 18:46:54 :::
CRR-186-2012
4
which left the petitioner – complainant aggrieved and it has filed the
present revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record.
A perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Magistrate
goes to show that the reasons given in arriving at the conclusion that the
prosecution had failed to prove its charge against the accused beyond
shadow of reasonable doubt are as follows:
(i) The witnesses examined by the prosecution were not
definite as to how much shortage in supplying rice by
the accused firm was there and that there were
variations in their statements with regard to the
shortage.
(ii)There is a huge gap between notice Ex.D1 served upon
the complainant firm and application moved to Station
House Officer for registration of criminal case against
the accused.
(iii)The payments were released to the accused firm in the
year 1996 and if there was some dispute regarding
shortage of rice to be supplied by the accused firm, the
payment would not have been released, thus giving rise
to a presumption that by that time the entire rice was
supplied.
(iv)It being established on record that in fact Sh.S.S. Gill
was Incharge of Ajnala area at that time and he was in
knowledge of entire facts of the case but he was not
4 of 7
10-12-2017 18:46:54 :::
CRR-186-2012
5
examined as a prosecution witness.
(v) Sh.Budh Singh, TA-I, Food Storage Depot, Rayya
appearing as PW1 had been declared as a hostile witness
since he had stated that he did not have any concern
with the dispute and remaining witnesses examined by
the prosecution were not having any personal
knowledge regarding the case.
(vi)The defence evidence was found to be plausible.
Whereas learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar while
dismissing the appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Magistrate
had noticed that:
None for the witnesses examined by the prosecution could
produce any type of authenticated evidence in the shape of
documentary evidence showing as to how much paddy was
stored/entrusted to Ajnala Rice Mills and how much resultant
rice was delivered by them and that prosecution was trying to
establish that on the basis of photocopies of
acknowledgements Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and that signatures of
accused could not be proved on those documents. The original
of alleged balance sheet Ex.P18 had not been produced. The
record on the basis of balance sheet had been prepared was not
produced/proved.
The lower Appellate Court has referred to judgment Punjab
State Civil Supplies Corporation Versus Deepak Kumar and others,
2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 550(DB) wherein it was observed that where
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 10-12-2017 18:46:54 :::
CRR-186-2012
6
Government has entrusted paddy to the accused for dehusking and
accused had failed to return rice after shelling as per agreement, the
agreement provided an arbitration clause, then no offence under Section
406 IPC was made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Johar and
Ors. Versus Mangal Prasad and Anr., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1165,
wherein it was observed as under:
Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is limited. The High Court did not point out any error of law
on the part of the learned Trial Judge. It was not opined that
any relevant evidence has been left out of its consideration by
the Court below or irrelevant material has been taken into
consideration. The High Court entered into the merit of the
matter. It commented upon the credentiality of the Autopsy
Surgeon. It sought to re-appreciate the whole evidence. One
possible view was sought to be substituted by another possible
view.
As per the ratio of this authority, a revision against
judgment of acquittal is though not barred but jurisdiction is severely
restricted.
After hearing the rival contentions, I find that law is well
settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited. This
Court is to interfere only if there is an illegality or infirmity apparent on
the face of the judgment/order passed by a Court below or the same is
perverse. Merely because another view in the matter is possible, no
6 of 7
10-12-2017 18:46:54 :::
CRR-186-2012
7
inference with such judgment is to be done.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed
by the Courts below. Such judgments cannot be termed as perverse since
it come out to have been passed in the light of settled principles of
criminal jurisprudence.
Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands
dismissed.
Necessary intimation be sent to the quarter concerned.
7.12.2017 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
10-12-2017 18:46:54 :::