Criminal Revisions came against acquittal in a cheating case under Section 420 IPC. The High Court found no material irregularity or jurisdictional error and dismissed the revision as lacking merit, as the accused had not appeared.
Revision dismissed as lacking merit; no error found in impugned judgment of acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1390 of 2001
Revisionist :- Ghaseeta Opposite Party :- Dal Chand And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
No one is present on behalf of the revisionist even in revised list. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
This revision has been filed against the judgement of acquittal dated 31.3.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina in Criminal Case No. 1035 of 1997: State Vs. Dal Chand & others, under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Nagina Dehat, District Bijnor.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It appears that one FIR was lodged by the revisionist Ghaseeta against accused persons and on the basis of contents of FIR, the case was investigated by the I.O. and finding sufficient material against opposite party nos. 1 and 2, the I.O. submitted charge sheet for the offence under section 420 IPC.
Before the learned trial court, P.W. 1 Ram Saran Sharma and P.W. 2 Ghaseeta were examined as fact witnesses. In addition to them, P.W. 3- I.O.,P.W.4- I.O. and P.W.5 chick writer were also examined.
The case in the FIR was that a sale-deed was obtained by the accused persons through a impostor who intended himself to be complainant Ghaseeta. The learned trial court after discussing the evidence, found that no attempt was made to get the thumb impression of the complainant compared on the basis of executed sale-deed and thumb impression in Register No. 8. The learned trial court also found that the sale-deed was executed on 30.8.1986 and the FIR was lodged on the basis of application made on 07.5.1988 at 6.30 p.m. by the order of Additional District Magistrate. As such, the learned trial court found that there was enough delay in lodging of the FIR. It was also found that the statement of complainant was unnatural, inpracticable and witnesses had given contradictory evidence. Therefore, the learned trial court concluded that on the basis of evidence given by the prosecution, the charge was not established against the accused persons, hence they were
acquitted.
It appears that this revision was filed in the year 2001 and since then it is still awaiting admission. No one is appearing on behalf of the revisionist from the last date when it was listed.
In view of above, I do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgement.
The revision lacks merit, hence dismissed.
It is further observed that if any government appeal is pending that will be decided in accordance with law and this judgement will have no impact on that government appeal.
Order Date :- 2.12.2019 RCT/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error exists in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Whether the revision filed by the accused against the order of acquittal on charges of fraudulent execution of sale deed merits allowance.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and contradictory evidence negates the prosecution case sufficiently to warrant acquittal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ghaseeta
Dal Chand And Others
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
