The High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. to prevent miscarriage of justice. This power can be exercised even if the specific ground of miscarriage of justice is not raised in the revision petition.

( 1 ) THIS application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. registered as C. R. R. No. 1564 of 2003 at the instance of the defacto-complainant is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned special Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur, in Special Case No. 5 of 2002 under Section 409, I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that O. P. No. 2 - accused being Assistant to Section Officer, Sadar and Gangarampur, an employee of dakshin Dinajpur Zilla Parishad was entrusted by Zilla Parishad to collect Toll tax from trucks at Balupara Truck Terminus under Zilla Parishad. In spite of collection of huge amount as Toll Tax the O. P. No. 2 -accused did not deposit the said amount to the credit of Zilla Parishad and thereby he mis appropriated a sum of Rs. 4,43,437/ -. F. I. R was lodged and charge under Section 409, i. P. C was framed against the accused by the learned Judge, Special Court and learned Judge Special Court by the impugned order acquitted the accused.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Special Judge the defacto-complainant Zilla Parishad filed the instant application for quashing the order of acquittal.

( 4 ) DURING hearing it has been contended by the learned lawyer for the petitioner that the O. P. No. 2 - accused being an employee of Zilla Parishad was entrusted with the task of collecting Toll Tax at the balupara Truck Terminus on behalf of the Zilla Parishad and he did not deposit the said amount in favour of Zilla Parishad. On realization of Toll Tax the O. P. No. 5 -accused issued receipts and the said documents relating to collections of toll tax made by the o. P.- accused were seized by the police during investigation but those documents were not exhibited during trial. In order to prove that the accused realised toll tax on behalf of Zilla Parishad the said documents were required to be proved during trial but the learned prosecutor for the reasons best known to him did not make any attempt to prove the seized documents. He only proved the seizure list by which documents were seized. The stock register and other documents were seized under the seizure list out those documents also were not proved during trial. For not proving those documents the best evidence to establish that the O. P. No. 2 collected toll tax and he did not deposit the same could not be made available to the Court and the Court acquitted the accused observing that no paper or document has been proved by the prosecution to establish that the accused collected Rs. 4,43,437/- as toll tax from the truck-men of Baiupara Truck Terminus being authorised by the Zilla Parishad, Dakshin Dinajpur as an employee of the said Parishad. Learned prosecutor instead of make any attempt to prove those documents declined to adduce any evidence and the prosecution case was closed and the accused was acquitted.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that even under Section 311, Cr. P. C. Learned Special Judge should have taken step for admitting those documents into evidence but the most valuable provision under section 311, Cr. P. C for serving the cause of justice was not resorted to by the learned Special Judge.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further contends that order of acquittal has resulted in miscarriage of justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice this Court may exercise the inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and in the facts and circumstances of this case the exercise of said power is required.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel has further contended that the learned Judge also did not consider the materials on record properly and took wrong approach in acquitting the accused.

( 8 ) IT has further been contended by the learned lawyer for the O. P. that the present contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned prosecutor did not prove the documents seized and he did not play the role of a prosecutor sincerely resulting in failure of just

Click Here to Read the rest of this document