Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Dakshini Kichha Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Kichcha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2008
Decided On : 03-07-2020
Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, Kailash Chandra Tewari, Advocate, Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate, Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, B.S. Kathayat, Advocate
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 409, 428 and 477-A and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 397/401 – Verification of stock in Kisan Sahkari Seva Samiti short of Rs. 11,29,045.70 – No submission of verification – Removal of respondent No. 2 – Godown was sealed – Seal was found broken – FIR – Charge-sheet – Acquittal by Trial Court – Criminal revision against the same – PW5 could not give details of each and every documents on the basis of which he could say that in the godown maintained by respondent No. 2 stock was less to the extent of worth Rs. 11,29,045.70 – Only general arguments have been advanced – What is wrong in the impugned judgment, not indicated— No illegality impropriety or wrong in the impugned judgment – No interference – Revision dismissed. (Paras 13, 14 and 19)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 397/401 – Law of revision – Revisional scope – Appreciation of evidence – In revision, the evidence cannot be scrutinized or appreciated de novo – Evidence can be looked into only, if some irrelevant material is considered or relevant matter is not considered or there is some perversity in the appreciation of evidence. (Para 10)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 409] 428 o 477A vkSj n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 397@401 & fdlku lgdkjh lsok lfefr esa LVkWd dk lR;kiu & #ñ 11]29]045-70@& dh deh & lR;kiu dk dksbZ izLrqrhdj.k ugha & foi{kh la[;k dk gVk;k tkuk & xksnke lhy fd;k x;k & lhy VwVh gqbZ ik;h x;h & izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ & vkjksi i= & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nks"keqDr & blds fo#) nkf.Md fuxjkuh & PW5 ,sls izR;sd nLrkostksa dk fooj.k ugha ns ldk Fkk] ftlds vk/kkj ij] og ;g dg lds fd foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk O;ofLFkr fd;s x;s xksnke esa] LVkWd #ñ 11]29]045-70@& dh lhek ls de Fkk & ek= lk/kkj.k vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa & vk{ksfir fu.kZ; esa D;k xyr gS] ;g bafxr ugha gS & vk{ksfir fu.kZ; esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk vFkok xyrh ugha gS & dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha & fuxjkuh [kkfjtA ¼izLrj 13] 14 ,oa 19½
¼c½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 397@401 & fuxjkuh dh fof/k & iqujh{k.kh; foLrkj & lk{; dk ewY;kadu & fuxjkuh esa] lk{; dh iqu% laoh{kk ugha dh tk ldrh vFkok mldk u, fljs ls ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS & lk{; ij ek= rHkh fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS ;fn fdlh vlaxr lkexzh ij fopkj fd;k tkrk gS vFkok & lqlaxr ekeys ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkrk vFkok ;fn lk{; ds ewY;kadu esa dksbZ vuqfprrk gSA
¼izLrj 10½
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - E instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2008, passed in Criminal Case No. 3484 of 2007, State Vs. Satish Chandra Joshi, by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short "the Case"). By the impugned judgment and order the respondent no.2 has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 409, 428 and 477-A IPC.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of the revision are as hereunder:-
espondent no.2 was in-charge of fertilizer department in Dakshini Kichha Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short "the Samiti"). On 11.11.1995, PW4 R.S. Chufal took over the charge of Managing Director of the Samiti. On 29.11.1995, a notice was given to the respondent for verification of the stock. But, he did not submit for verification. On 15.03.1996, the charge of In-Charge, Fertilizer Division was removed from respondent no.2. Thereafter, from 29.03.1996, the respondent no.2 absented himself. Due to this reason, the regular verification ending on 31.03.1996 of the stock could not be undertaken. On 17.04.1996, the respondent no.2 was suspended and requests were made to seal the godown. On 05.05.1996, the godown, allegedly under the charge of respondent no.2 were sealed. Subsequently, on 06, 07 and 12.06.1996, the seals of the godown were broken in the presence of PW1 Bharat Lal, the then Naib Tehsildar and other officers of the Samiti. According to the FIR, it was found that the stock that would have been available was not there in the godown. It was short of the worth of Rs.11,29,045.70/-. On 01.07.1996, an FIR was lodged against respondent no.2 by PW2 R.S. Chufal, the then Managing Director of the Samiti. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet under Sections 409, 420 and 477-A IPC was submitted against respondent no.2. Based on it, the proceedings of the case were instituted. On 08.01.1999, the respondent no.2 was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 477-A IPC, to which, the respondent no.2 denied and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, PW1 Bharat Lal, PW2 Babu Singh, the former Managing Director of the Samiti, PW3 Pratap Singh, PW4 R.S. Chufal, PW5 Ram Dutt Pandey, PW6 Allauddin, PW7 Dilip Kumar, the Investigating Officer and PW8 Const. Harinandan Joshi, who is the writer of the chik FIR.
4. Respondent no.2 was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In defence DW1 Shivaji Katiyar, the then Registrar, Co-operative Societies was examined. After hearing the parties, the learned court below by the impugned judgment and order acquitted respondent no.2 of the charges. Aggrieved by it, the instant revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the records.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Samiti would submit that on 05.08.1990, respondent no.2 was given charge of fertilizer Division in the Samiti. On 29.11.1995, he was required to produce and submit for verification of the stock, but he did not abide by the directions issued. Thereafter, he absented himself and the stocks were subsequently verified. It was found short of Rs.11,29,045.70/-. Thereby according to learned counsel for the Samiti offence was committed by the respondent no.2 and it has been proved by the documentary as well as oral evidence of the witnesses. Reference has been made to the statement of PW5 Ram Dutt Pandey, when he says at para no. 2 of his statement that it is based on the charge register and he found that the stock was short of Rs.11,29,045.70/-.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would very vehemently submit that it is a case of harassment of an employee of the Samiti by the senior officers; It is a case of false implication; Learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to indicate any illegality, impropriety or any other wrong
