216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1476-MA of 2018 (OM)
Decided on:-October 09, 2018.
Ratni Devi deceased through LRs Ramanand.
………Applicant.
Versus
Smt. Kavita.
………Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
*****
Present:- Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate
for the applicant.
HARI PAL VERMA, J.
CRM-26009-2018
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for condonation of delay of 6 days
in filing the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of
leave to appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
the delay of 6 days in filing the instant application for grant of leave to appeal
is condoned.
CRM-A-1476-MA-2018
Applicant Ratni Devi (since deceased and represented by her son
and legal heir Ramanand) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) has
filed the present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal
1 of 6
14-10-2018 10:12:53 :::
CRM-A-1476-MA of 2018 -2-
Procedure for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 19.03.2018
passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bawal, District Rewari,
whereby respondent Kavita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) was
acquitted of the charges levelled against her in a complaint filed by the
complainant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC.
Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that she was an
old aged lady and was receiving old age pension from the Government.
However, she expired during the pendency of the complaint and is now
represented by her son Ramanand.
It was pleaded by the complainant that as per the Government
directions, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is required to disburse the
pension to the eligible persons. For this purpose, the accused received the
entire amount from the Social Welfare Department. She was supposed to
identify the eligible person prior to the handing over the pension amount to
him/her after obtaining his/her signature or thumb impressions. The
complainant did not receive the old-age pension for the month of July, 2012.
When the complainant asked about the pension from the accused, who was
Sarpanch of the village, she (complainant) was informed that the pension was
not received from the Government. Then upon verification from Social
Welfare Department, the complainant came to know that an amount of
Rs.3,250/- was disbursed as pension for the month of July, 2012. However,
the complainant did not receive the said amount. In this manner, the accused
misappropriated the said amount after putting the forged thumb impressions
of the complainant. When the complainant verified this fact from the accused,
2 of 6
14-10-2018 10:12:53 :::
CRM-A-1476-MA of 2018 -3-
she not only misbehaved with her but also threatened to kill her. Accordingly,
the complainant submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari,
who also conducted an enquiry and prepared a report, but still, no action was
taken against the accused. During the enquiry, the accused had stated that she
had handed over the amount of pension to Dhanno Devi, who is the sister-in-
law of the complainant. However, even Dhanno Devi never received a single
penny of the amount of pension. Thus, the accused has committed a fraud
with a view to grab the amount of pension belonging to the complainant.
Hence, the present complaint.
After recording preliminary evidence of the complainant, the
accused was summoned to face trial under Section 406 IPC vide order dated
22.05.2014 passed by learned trial Court.
Therefore, pre-charge evidence of the complainant was recorded.
Finding a prima facie case against the accused, learned trial Court charge
sheeted her under Section 406 IPC vide order dated 02.12.2017, to which she
did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments of both
the sides, learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the charges levelled
against her vide impugned judgment dated 19.03.2018.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the complainant has
filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to
appeal.
Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly, rather, overlooked
3 of 6
14-10-2018 10:12:53 :::
CRM-A-1476-MA of 2018 -4-
the evidence produced on record by the complainant. The accused was
acquitted by the trial Court without applying its judicious mind to the facts
and circumstances of the case.
He has further argued that the guilt of the accused was proved in
the enquiry conducted by district administration also, wherein it was found
that the amount of pension was not paid to the complainant, rather, the same
was paid to some other lady. It was, therefore, to be noted that the other lady
i.e. Dhanno Devi was not authorised by the complainant to represent or
receive the amount of her pension.
He has further argued that the impugned judgment dated
19.03.2018 passed by the trial Court is illegal and based upon misreading of
facts and evidence and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the
same is liable to be set aside and the accused be convicted and sentenced
accordingly.
I have heard learned counsel for the complainant.
The allegation of the complainant is that the accused has
misappropriated the amount of Rs.3,250/-, whereas the plea of the accused is
that the amount was handed over to Dhanno Devi, who is sister-in-law of the
complainant, as at the time of disbursement of the amount of pension, the
complainant was not available.
During pendency of the complaint before the trial Court, the
complainant had expired and her son Ramanand appeared as her legal heir.
Said Ramanand, while appearing in the witness box as PW2 has denied in his
cross-examination that Dhanno Devi was his paternal aunt and she received
4 of 6
14-10-2018 10:12:53 :::
CRM-A-1476-MA of 2018 -5-
any amount on behalf of the complainant. Interestingly, when the complaint
was filed by the complainant, she had specifically mentioned that Dhanno
Devi is her sister-in-law and when Dhanno Dvi was ordered to be summoned
in the Court for obtaining her specimen signatures, she also admitted the fact
of this relationship. The matter was reported to the Deputy Commissioner,
Rewari, who conducted an enquiry against the accused as well as Gram
Sachiv Jai Bhagwan. In the enquiry report Ex.PW1/B, it was established that
the amount of Rs.3,250/- was received by Dhanno Dvi. Even handwriting
expert Jaiveer Singh Yadav, who appeared before the trial Court as DW3, has
stated that the thumb impressions on the APR form belong to Dhanno Devi.
Thus, the complainant has failed to establish her case. The amount of pension
was disbursed to Dhanno Devi, who is sister-in-law of the complainant.
Though Ramanand as PW2 has denied the factum of relationship
of Dhanno Devi with the complainant, but once the complainant in her life
time admitted the fact that Dhanno Devi is her sister-in-law coupled with the
fact that it has duly been proved on record that said Dhanno Devi received the
amount of pension on behalf of the complainant, this Court finds that there is
no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2018 passed by learned
trial Court, whereby the accused was acquitted of the charges levelled against
her.
The complainant has failed to show any misreading of evidence
by the learned trial Court and has not been able to point out any legal error in
the judgment under challenge, which may warrant interference by this Court.
Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence on record to connect the accused
5 of 6
14-10-2018 10:12:53 :::
CRM-A-1476-MA of 2018 -6-
with the alleged crime, no case is made out for interference in the impugned
order dated 19.03.2018 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bawal.
Accordingly, the present application, being devoid of any merit,
is dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.
(HARI PAL VERMA)
October 09, 2018 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
6 of 6
14-10-2018 10:12:53 :::
