SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ratni Devi Since Deceased Through … vs Kavita on 9 October, 2018

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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation