Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Arun Kumar Rai - Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.32 of 2013 (Under Section 379/ 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
Decided On : 29-08-2023
Criminal Revision - Acquittal of Charges - Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC - [Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC] - The court discussed the charges under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC and the evidence related to entrustment, embezzlement, and forgery. The court emphasized the lack of evidence of entrustment and the disproof of forged documents, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquittal of the accused, Arun Kumar Rai, who was charged under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC based on a first information report filed in 1996. The prosecution alleged misappropriation of government stock and use of forged documents by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not prove entrustment of the wire to the accused, and the prosecution failed to establish embezzlement and forgery. The court concluded that the accused was falsely implicated due to departmental enmity and acquitted him of all charges.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the lack of evidence of entrustment, embezzlement, and forgery, and the possibility of false implication due to departmental enmity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of entrustment and the failure of the prosecution to prove embezzlement and forgery, leading to the benefit of doubt given to the accused and his acquittal.
Final Decision: The court quashed the judgment and order of the appellate court, set aside the acquittal of the accused, and allowed the revision. The accused was not required to surrender, and his bail bonds were cancelled.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2012, State Vs. Arun Kumar Rai, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge set-aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.08.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.673 of 1999, State Vs. Arun Kumar Rai, whereby the revisionist-accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC and remanded the case to the learned trial court with a direction to decide the matter within two months.
2. The case of the prosecution starts with lodging of a first information report (Ex. Ka-24) dated 25.01.1996 in Police Station– Chamba, District-Tehri Garhwal against the revisionist/ accused Arun Kumar Rai S/o Krishan Bhagwan Rai on the basis of which a Case Crime No. 21 of 1996, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC was registered in Police Station – Chamba, District – Tehri Garhwal.
3. From the first information report (Ex.Ka-24) the case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the revisionist-accused Arun Kumar Rai S/o Krishan Bhagwan Rai was posted as Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector in Soil Conservation Unit Chamba from 28.08.1986 to 22.05.1992; during this period he was given G.I. wire used in the construction work by the Soil Conservation Inspector Chamba. In the year 1992, revisionist-accused Arun Kumar Rai was transferred to Dehradun but he did not handover 8.90849 metric tons wire of the value of Rs.1,14,009.25; on correspondence the revisionist-accused vide letter dated 21.05.1993 informed the informant Soil Conservation Officer Narendra Nagar, District – Tehri Garhwal that all the wire measuring 8.90849 metric tons was given to Vijay Lal Tamta, Soil Conservation Inspector Chamba on 21.01.1991 and in support thereof the receipt given by Mr. Vijay Lal Tamta, Soil Conservation Inspector receiving the 89 quintal wire dated 21.01.1991 was enclosed. The said fact of receiving 89 quintals wire was denied by Vijay Lal Tama vide letter dated 27.07.1993 stating that no such wire was handed over to him by the revisionist-accused till date and about the receipt dated 21.01.1991 (photocopy) it was told by Vijay Lal Tamta that the said document was forged by putting his forged signature. The informant after appreciating sequence of the incident and the record came to the conclusion that the revisionist-accused had misappropriated the government stock and was taking shelter of forged documents in his defence. With these averments the informant Dr. Gopal Singh Rawat, Soil Conservation Officer lodged the first information report, the chick (Ex. Ka-25) was registered against the revisionist-accused.
4. The investigation ensued, sample of hand writing examination of PW-2 Ashok Kumar Sharma, Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector and signature of Vijay Lal Tamta were taken and were sent to hand writing expert and a report was submitted by the handwriting expert. After investigation, the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-34) was submitted on 22.01.1999 against the revisionist-accused under sections 409, 429, 468, 471 IPC and the cognizance was taken.
5. On 19.10.2000 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charges against the revisionist-accused under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC. The revisionist-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for his trial.
6. During the trial the prosecution produced PW-1 Lal Singh Rana (Storekeeper) Soil Conservation Office Narendra Nagar, PW-2 Ashok Kumar Sharma, Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector, Soil Conservation Office, New Tehri, PW-3 Raghunath Singh,(Retired ) A.O.O., Agriculture Defence, Agriculture Department Rampur, PW-4 Dr. G.S. Rawat (informant), Deputy Director, Soil Conservation Department, Dehradun, PW-5 Ganpat Singh Pundir (Retired) Accountant, Directorate of Agriculture, Dehradun, PW-6 Kishori Lal, Chief Agriculture Officer, Narendra Nagar, PW-7 Vijay Lal Tama, Assistant
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn acquittals if the trial court's findings are perverse or unsupported by reasonable conclusions.
Point of law: So far as the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is concerned, it trite that even the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be drawn only if an accused person has accep....
The court clarified that misapplication of legal principles regarding entrustment and misappropriation in criminal breach of trust warrants overturning an acquittal.
The High Court has the power to interfere with an order of acquittal in revision in exceptional cases, such as when the trial court fails to exercise its power under Section 311 of the Code of Crimin....
Once appellate court arrives at a conclusion and judgment of acquittal is passed in favour of accused person after considering materials on record, scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction be....
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must affirm the trial court's findings unless the accused's guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction in cases of acquittal and the limitations on converting a finding of acquittal into one of convictio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
