Dismissed

Assistant Engineer,Cseb v. Nandlal Binjhwar

Chhattisgarh HC3 Dec 2014ACQA/231/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal under the Electricity Act, 2003 for wrongful electricity connection. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment due to insufficient prosecution evidence, procedural lapses in search and seizure, and lack of proof regarding property ownership and the accused's presence during inspection.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal appeal dismissed; acquittal of the respondent affirmed.

Assistant Engineer,Cseb Vs Nandlal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

air

¶2

."s iJA{yi-i IN THE HIGH_CQURT OF CHHATTlSGARU-AI_BILASPUR (C.G.) ? ?^!/Q^ €l§Wf^CAPPEAfc-MO.V;52-OF200& TTT^ APPELLANT Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. C^/^^^a^ S fe VERSUS " -TA/? - Scv&ciyiya^i y C/'-i^-ft^ufei^""•sy,^! | {C-^~ RESPONDENT : Nandlal Wm}\wws'/o PuMcd^Bi^haic^ fi-/o ACCUSED PERSON ^llla.9^fivt£cuta-C^/)difE- P'S^.7^ l>l>ut^ - f^^^e.^i-. APPLICATION FOR_GRANT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 378-^(4} OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, M 1973 _ __j&^L

¶3

/^
:^'

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPBR

¶5

ACQUITTAL APPEAL N0. 231 OF 2009

¶6

APPELLANT (Complainant)

¶7

Assistant EngEraeer; ChhattisgarKiSfate Electricitv Boarct

VERSUS

Nandlal Binjhwar

(Accused)

POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT ON

¶12

.12-201:4

¶13

^
't'W-M
:SK/'
^Wi,^^-^-:fff^f.:
^y'-/ ^,rj|
^"'w^SSK^SS'^SSSpft's'••A^iii3SZi;:F^'tJ;
-dc^+lq uRl^

¶14

Sd/-
P.SamKoshy
Judge

¶15

¶16

la iffia ia H

¶17

HIGHLCOURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶18

ACOUITTAL APPEAL N0. 231 OF 2009

¶19

A^PELLANT

¶20

(Complainant)

¶21

Assistant Enginjeeil|,!|| Chhattisgarl-i?Stai;|r!.| Electricity BoariS^K

VERSUS

RESPONDENT

Nandlal BinjKwar

(Accused)

Present: Mr. M.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr. S.N. Nande, Advocate, for the Respondent.^:

¶27

(Single;B%iBh|WiNe ]'M.IK|i'ISa.m Koshy, J.) JUDGEMENT 3 -12-2014) (

¶28

(l)Bi^<phe present Acqifl^t®l^'S3ai|3g;&I^'-has been prefeilrgtf's'.yy ^ltHe Appellant against the JTaSgJBgJffsBif: acquittal dated' t26p 1 ;2,Q07 passed by fhe Special Judg%|t2ffi|®BElectricityAct, 2003), |Raigarh, in Special Case No.74/20KJ?jfw|ier(iby the Respondent :has been acquitted of the charge ,T.,i«tSer;''Se(ati6n 135 of fhe ElectricityLAct, 2003. . 1j!,?-:IW?;.i'TAff :.:.11,1:.!',:

¶29

(2) Brief facts giving ri'ge"W Ittg'filing of the instant Aequittal Appeal as per the prosecution are that the Respondent hadgiyen an electricity connection, bearing No.7Q:/78/57537, at village, Pai-sada Chhote for domestic use and thafon account'of non-payment of outstanding electricity bills amouniing to Rs.10,627/-', the l:said electricity connection of the Respondent was disconnected bv the Electricitv Board on 22.3.2007. However, on 26.4.2007,'ori -sudden inspeetion of the preniises of the'Respondent by the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Board and its staff, it was fouri3 that the Respondent had taken an electricity;e;onnectionillegally ;by directly hooking from the Low Tension Line^of the Electricity Bciard^and thereby he was committing theft of.electricity and, in thepoyrse.,; fe was using a lOOwatt bulb in his hoUse and coi?suming''lDO\Katts^of elettricity illegally. It was held that/ffhe Respondent 'had. put.the

¶30

-7-

¶31

Electricity Board to a total loss:::|df,Rs.ll,164/(Rs:i2S!7y'-^%t-;: damages, Rs.300/towards comgensation + Rs.10,627,/- Jas1; dues). Thereafter, a complaint cajse^ (registered as 'Speisial' ;Case;i| No.74/2007') was filed befbre the Sp|fcial Judge (under Eleetrieity:'; Act, 2003) against the Respondent!|l:for having coirimitted.'-the' offence under Section 135 of the':Etectricity Act, 20Q3|,'.anf:ij'the ' : i .:, matterwas put to trial.

¶32

(3) During the course of trial, three witnesses i.e. PW-1 A!;L. ;' Patel, Assistant Grade-II, PW-2 ChKeduram Patel, Lineman and PW-3 R. Dayasi, Assistant Engineer were examined.by- :lfhe:^ prosecution in syg!|i(n||ifl|.iflsjt||ig!e;ijijfl)&ithgm were departinenlsal. witnesses. 3&a.|Ei|!.6flfof the accusecf Malpnclg.nt was recorded undei-ijSSEeBi'on 313 of CrPC in which'he denied'ttte.jgHlcymsfances . a]a@18|iBiHg against him---,i,ttevjrthg"t,j)rosecution casg|,ll';g}eaGled inn ence and false irn^lK3ajy®t^,:;Bu : s':" ,..-.1:;:-

¶33

(4) After completion of|!tt||']d|t|,, the Court below, i;e,,;fhe Special Court constitutetl?|i!m9!ettthe Electricity Act,:! vide;ifts judgment of acquittal^^t®cI,^S,5.11,2007 reached to the conclusion that the pi|osgoii.t|ioHI;Ka.S5-not been able to prove^its case beyond reasonable;'at8;efit'B;PS°Sgainst the Respondefit1 and,: therefore, giving the benefit pf [doubt the Responderit was acquitted ofthe charge leveled against him under Section'135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. : ",' •• ;^': 'i'.;^

¶34

(5) It is this judgment of acquittal dated 26.11.2007 against which the instant Acquittal Appeal has been' preferred1 fey,;the ^ : • •.', Appellant/Electricity Board. i! l;;':,,:r

¶35

(6) Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Shri M.D. Sharma, has submitted that ih fact the Court Below has too technically ri'ot accepting the case of the prosecufibn acquitted the Respondent, Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted fhat.it was the duty of the Respondent .to pro've the case of the'disputed premises'not being his own or at least the Respondenf cpul'.d have .put sorae questjons to the prosecutiQn witnesses in respectjOpthe

¶36

•^T—————

¶37

i i: f i'

¶38

ownership and title of the premiseg:;]t3eing fhat of the Respon(ieffi:|:i Learned Counsel also submits tla.at'the Court belQW;l'ias:;'ri:®t1 properly appreciated the oral and l<stobumentaTy evidenGgaildujceti by the prosecution and has discarcied the admissibie ::euidenii3®^ and, in the course, the Court bel:6w has decided, th,e;^:ri;i:atter contrary to law. It was also conterided by the learned Cdufflsel for. the Appellant that the third proviso,:to Section 135 ofElectricity Act, 2003 clearly gives a benefit of presumption to be made.and' !^fo the Court below has totally ignored the said third proviso Section 135 of the 'Electricity Acf, 120.03 that unless the cpntraFy is proved it has to ^fi gr(SiSiB|8d.,|laaiI; J.Jne accused/Resppndenf was dishon|iS(Syiyj^^W?%l£ctncrt|f<6|;]jh^||\pg).ellant/Electricitv: Board.-|L|8jEned Counsel fbr the Appellant furlfe6eiy|n^respdn:se; tp the0:i|fflng given by the CoTfl'yfaelQw/submitted thalsSBN^r'as ^he ajigiBcability of the Re&vlsl&ng'^leS^ej.ng to search aniy'seizyre underfhe CrPC is conce^ia'e-ElK^iitBJs^ction 4 of Section 135 clearly stipulates that the provisji©|tsi,S6y©rPCpertaining to search'and seizure should be madB:5J|;a;[3]3ili{sab;le which by itself, clearly indicates the provisionryffoff^SXS^ciSLtory but could: ha.ye :been only made applicable, ifQ.i,j^SM.e^ySpv: facts and circurrtstarT.c;es!;Qf the case, non-com.pliances^aBsya.QBlpyisions of search an.d; seizure under CrPC would not vitiate the:]3roceedings drawn^under tKe Electricity Act, 2003. Sofar as thejnon-availability of Independent witnesses to prove the case of .the.prosecution is cyncerned,,' leamed Counsel for the Appellantisubmits that orily beGause.the independent witnesses have not en] exarained to prov&.its .ease by itself would not vitiate the prb^ecution'i :. • ' case if^the'other-.••.•"•'••' ./'. , prosecution witriesses have been ab |to prove its case-byleading proper evidence before the Court 'lfielow and that fFom^thetr evidence if the Respondent has •nptijaeen able to bring;,.6ut^anj substance to the extent of creatin.g 'a doubt in the Fniiici^of-tite '::". ':-;:!:1: Court bringing 'ouf such facts sp.ias to disbelieve the|,entir:e 1:. .,. . : '•'• .^,.-' : i [..' 'l yersion. of the prosecution witnesses.^ ^ p~ : ^

¶39

-4-

¶40

Learned Counsel for the Appellant further led his a^giliEti'eiBt' drawing attention of the Court to^tfaiTd proviso to SectiGn.:'I35Io;f the Elecfricity Act, 2003 whereby ithcts been envisaged t:l-iat:.:: |1;:':1:.

¶41

If it is proved that any arti[@.eial means or means^not^^'.j authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier;::as :fhe,:, case ma-y be, exist for the abstraction, consumptioric>r; •,!J]: use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presuined;:'. :' until the contrary is proved,, that any abstraction, - consumption or use of electticity has been dishonestly;: caused by suchconsumer." ^ ,^ ::.

¶42

That is to say that there shall always be a presumptioh until otherwise proved the fact that tlie accused person hag beeit dishonestly usingO^||jB|(|r^|Qi e)ett||i|!lB^|i. ^For ready'reference sub-secti,QjT''t|j: B''Bgction 135 of theiEleclB|Hts'%ct;,.. 2003 is: also reprcyiE|S^ whereby it has been envisaged unde:E| llrefeElectrieity Ael1,':S(X)3 that: "the prqv^siortS^iys'yWCode of Cnrmncaliyrsdsdure relafing to search cind seizyS-sVSlQfiphj, as far as rr&iy.be, to ' searches and seizure unelSMyisf/WS' /

¶43

For the above stat|;e| ,|rgas0n;s, learned Counsel fo:r' the Appellant submits that^l3Be&instaMttAcquittal Appeal deserves :I-Q be-'allowed and by set:tiin:g,.|a.sicl'e!,'t;H|,FbrdGr passed by the:Goyrt below, the Respondent be.,coiivictejl;&r the offence under;Sleetion !i.l;:J;,' 135 oftheElectricityAct, 2003.. -: ' .

¶44

Iri support ofhis contentions',:,eounsel for the ApRellant'has relied upon the judgements reporfed in 2001 Cr.L.J. 504;:'200C? Cr.L.J.'4100; 2008 .Cr.L.J. 4034,:'!20I3 Cr.L.J.. (NOC)-441 ;'1 2:006 !; i. (2) Cr.L.J. 1 121; AIR 2002 SC 1621;.and 2006 (10);SCC: 617.,-

¶45

(7) Per contra, Shri S.N. Nand^' learned' Counsel''fdr!.the Respondent, opposing'the submissj|ons put forth by the'learned. Counsel for the Appellant, has veKemently argued th'at: a'plain perusal of the finding.arrived at tw':fee Court below itself would reveal that the entire prosecution^;Gase is done in a Half hearted manner and no efforts have bee&'l!'made' by the prosecu:tion;';tQ prove the case beyond'all reasonabl|e,doubt. Learned Ceipinsel'|faF the Respondent also submitted thatj,even ifwe peruse the reeerds

¶46

¶47

-5-

¶48

to assess the manner in which the'.imwestigation was e;oncl;t.tc:ted.it would reflect that the prosecution^has not made an i;s:erif3ii!s efforts for proving the charge levellGEi against the RespotiMeiB.t^tn: a manner as is required under the|;provisions of law.: Uearned; Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that- ':prope:r Panchnama was not prepared and1 tHat there was no signature of the Respondent in the Panchnama; (Ex.P-1). According fo" the Counsel for the Respondent, apparently no witness of the neac vicinity was called upon at the time'of the surprised check being conducted by the officers of the Electricity Board, which.givesTise to a great amount^ (^{&clSguB1| |nj| tl^jgQrosecution stor3'. Lgarned Counsel foto'tBelhBBSisehcKntnay'MttBHfllsdsuhinitted that-the owners|ii|gi@flithe Respondent was also not prdlsd'and that fhere is n^X'fliarect evidence. No^ SEizu.Ee of,any electric eqMiiiament.has betulmade and that th®'seaziitE&;(3ft:%];reis also doubtfuI'f,.yrRewi:sej. the provisions of Section:J*0S(3y|fi.the Electricity Act have nof been complied with. It wa:s?.al;s&jis6i|iiended by the learned Counse| fbr the Respondent that ipM'^l'pepuse the evidences which-haye coTae on record it w0nl£t:!''.g(t-iESws-;,that there are a lot :of discrepancies, contradi-eia.oa&JI.a.t'i.et'Jl^'i.issions in the evidertce of the proseeution witnesse^gted^^stiaerefore, the benefit of :doy,bt should be given to the Responde'nt,,iCounsel for the Respondent has further submitted that the scope;Qf interfering in an Acqui'ttal Appeal is very Umited and that it'has to be proved on fciehalf;..c>f the complainant beyond all reasonable doubts in respecf,pf commission of the offence by the accused and th.at even1 iffherejs a slightest of doubt in respect of^the^case having been.^prpyed pr nof, the benefit would always .gd :in favour of the ciGcused,. Learned Counsel' for the RespondeEit, therefore, prayed that ^the instant Appeal being devoid of merits|,i;s liable to be rejected. . • , i; (8) Considering the contentions':]:rut Torth by the::'leamed Counsels appearing for either .sNe and on perusal :of;..uhe jnaterials available on record, if we.isee the finding arFiYed.a.tby the Conrt below, the Court below a.f1;!er taking into consicl'eratioa

¶49

-6-;

¶50

the evidences that have been leacl,l:(an1 behalf of the pFB^effytiicia;; held that the prosecution has fsulSlct to prove its case,:KeyQncl; reasonable doubt and that there are'|many lacunas on thel,part,Sf the prosecution in establishing itsl'case. :;, K, ;, li'^:|; y

¶51

When we see the evidence of the prosecution witnesseg,:fee;; PW-1 A.L. Patel, Assistant Grade-II, PW-2 Chheduram. Patel,. Linefflan and PW-3 R. Da^'asi, Assistant Engineer, they have stated the electricity connection; of the Respondent'was disconnected on 22.3.2007. However, when the see the erossexamination of thesaid three witnesses, i.e., PW-1, PW-2;&PW-53,' they have clearlx,8ta| :lgtSn|!4SiflUSy'|ijygft.!»:tpLPresent at'fhe'place when the^el!KcB|iCBSjsBiiRe of the RespG>n8duHwa®i;jdisconnected!on 22.3.SOi|7!ipFKus, there is no direct';eyidence toestaliliiSh'thefact :W6i|s|B|.p': fact thafwijsie electricity liia-e,,j,,ieit:;',;the^,.Respondent disofcnected on 22.3.3Q£>SAi3BuiBfi|a§,-'PW-l A.L. Patel,'Sssistant • Grade-II and PW-3 R. ]:9aya®|;fl^|ssj,stantEngineer, have1 stated :,'that the electricity CTnH'eisti|o'EJL :of the Respondent was. disconnected on 22.3.20Q%',oiiiaci3J3Uht ofthe fact that an ampynt of'Rs.10,546/- was c|GiS;L]j.r]30Et^;£hei.Respondent towards1 ,non.-; payment of outstandin||g®ije(£tinfftN)|f?bills.However, neifher :;:any document/order nor anyattsti'Te'gancting electricity disconrreGtioEi 6r bills in respect of the arrears,of:the electricity charges'have been produced by the prosecutiori fo ,establish that the electriciity connection of the Respondent was disconnected' on 22;3..20p7J.or the reason that an amount of R:s.l.0,546/- was due upp.n..the Respondent towards non-payment ;of|outstanding electncity biUs.Further, the prosecution witnesses i.e: PW-1 ;A,L^\iPaig], Assistant Grade-II, PW-2 Chhedura.m Patel, Linemaii and PW-3 R. Dayasi, Assistant .Engineer, hav^Fdearly stated :that on the date of inspection i.e. 'on 26.4.2Q.Q7.i!when the inspecting feam had inspected the house of the Respondent, at that'lime'lihis Respondent was no present in''the house; but one: :pers'o,n, namely, Varun, was present there;:at the time of inspCcliohc Neither;has the proseeution been.^abte tp establish fhei.ifaet:,'tha)'

¶52

-7-;

¶53

the person allegedly said to be present at the time ofMsjs'eEjliQit,, naniely, Varun, was in fact the brotber of the RespondenPn®r,Vtas the' prosecution been able to estaUlish the fact that;'thle:^pteE;e! where the the inspecfion was coi'lclulcted was in fact ;the;'h®jse; that belonged to the Respondent. In ather words, the prosecution has been failed to establish the ownership of the house where. the alleged theft ' of electricity :was being committ'ed. No document/revenue record or the \ evidence of Patwari vvas adduced by the prosecution, No statement of the said person, namely, Varun, or the Kotwar was recorded by the prosecution. The said reasons^gi''|&ig|.4{3jD|{,|jgS3si|!;element of doubt.in,.fl-ie wi!aiasS,St!!si prosecution,,;s(8r^|s'S31;'a;i"";E """"'"'"" ,»,,;„ ;

¶54

l£ii!Jte.(|B[<:ion, from the evidences.that have'"c(3ral&-;a3n're;cordit is,j|;'efis@ted that the Respottd;eEtQ\»as;;not issued wit^glygn.Dtice by^li'i'e officers of the E}tE;(|t3-|e|t|p;f]3S>3i£i prior to the entQwmade'by /the officers for search anffl?js.Bfeiar8J||;ind as regards the seizure-of the electric wire the not served witl-i aoy RQs|i0i3j(::BBt^ |was Panchnama so prepared. TMsiainfauRts to violation of Sectton!:l:3£) (3)- of the Elecfrieity AqtfliSicctMa.rdy^SB regards the assessmenfc'Qf the inspecting'team that-t|iieu@le®(]3a3iiaidi»nthad committed'a theft of ^lpOwatts of electricity, thifr's'aSne''fwas:not properly done as there was no electric equipment was seized on the basisofwhich.it could'be sa.id that the theft was thati'of lOOwatts. Likewise, from the Panchanama (Ex.P-1) it reflects. that only a single wire ;of 12nitr is said to have been seized.j.The spot map (Ex.P-3) also. does not have any signature of any:,'w'S.tness and that there is.?also, no mention about the fact that at wyiich part of the house.qfthe Respondent the said bulb was fixed,..IThere is a greaf .el;em,enl,;pf missing links in respect of entry,^ se'arch and seizure con.ductecl by the officers of the Appellant/Electricity Board at the premises of the accused Respondent to whjch there is no satisfaetpr-y explanation. Though the Electrictty ; Board has recorded':th:e evidence of its officers, but has not supported the ca.se^iiGirn.anv independent witness. ,' .;

¶55

,' .; 1,

¶56

-8-

¶57

For the foregoing reasons and;rthe evidences^{'i^'l^teK.&awe} come on record, it can be safeIy,.'Gbncluded that ?there!^;is^no perversity^inthe judgm'ent^{of theGpurtbelowasitcannjstBgsaid} that thejudgment is not based oriiffle evidence or fhe:':ew&esc^'ei^ record has not been properly agp^eciated by the Gourt;;Jbelow " • which may warrant interference by:'th'is Court. : :;': ^'

¶58

(10) In the instant case, learned Cdunsel for the Appellant has relied upon the matter of State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Surul and Another [2001 Cr.L.J. 504]. Relying upon Para-19 of:thelsaid judgement,^{learnedCounselforthe-'Appellantsubmittedilthat:th'e} requirement of^ gasfKf^'&fcftl ii|l.^j'e8fcclent and relied upon: witnesses-^s:) I|,aB.'SWKience to prQve::°tHUr,S5Pe^,j©£the proseGutiQri wou.ldJfiBpbe necessaiy, particulafly,; when tSgs.||nglggedings^'laaye h®eS|^fflrawnunder the prgyisictEfls^sf.th'e Electricity Ps8jsfSQQ3:'Bvit; tK'P'same would had*feje|;u|ii8qMttgcE.ifitis a case wKsre Bertairi specific seizure to be ,a&B®KS0Bi|'tt^ accused person;then^the presence^{oftheindepen.yBi'Bi^rwitnesgwouldhadbeen-relevant.} Similarly, learned Counsgl|fSr^|Me.,.i^]-ipellant also relied .upQriLthe deeision .rendei-ed by B'iUEnvgfe^ctncfcJhfaiiyana High CourtrGp)6rtedi,in 2009 Cr.L.J. 4100 tJSS^sscss^'iSwXd.er Pal & Ors. Vs.i.State'pf ''•Punjab", wherein the Qeftiitlgei'i'ffi)}; tl^e Appellant stressed.uppn Para-17, so far as the search and sei.2ure is coneerned.;;

¶59

However, the.said contentiori.^Qtthe leamed Counsellfor:tfae Appellant cannot be aecepfe'd for'tBq'reason that a plaira'peru'sa:! of the provisions sub-section 5 ofJ:Spection 100 pf GrPC. cjparlvf envisages the fact that the proxisions of requiremeHt'.ofs^ari. independent witness is for both yie.jnstances, i.e., fbE.aeaFct]:s:a.s well as for seizure. If we read the en.t'ire Section, i.e.-,-Sec:tiori:.I©(;) of CrPC and the said:sub-sec1;ion:'ienumerated therein ffi'.woul'cl" clearly show that the ,intenfion' qf!:the legislators reqmrirtg 'ian.. independent witness was fo show;:feat whatever action^!has been taken by the team cpnducting ,search and seizure act jrr .,.^n unbiased manner and are aTbitrjar^i or have made out',a^:fa|se complaint only on papers so a^:^)|(^ implicate a persbtf. ' T.he

¶60

a^:^)|(^ implicate a persbtf. ' T.he f-^,;i::'

¶61

¶62

-9-:!

¶63

persons of an independent and. 'respectable inhabitgnt;i::16il;^tKe locality would prove the fact of ae&rch as well as •tfog-j {m]GJimgs made in the course of the searcK.^Bence, the saidjuetgSig'ieiTts ! ;'^i would also not come to the aid offfl|;..fltppellant. i :"ti1 '•

¶64

(11) Learned Counsel for the ApReII&nt has further1 relied' uppn the decision rendered by Gujrat.'High Court in "G.opa.tbhai Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat" reported in 2008 Cr.L.J. 4034, wherein the Counsel for the Appellant relied upon in:Para.11 of the said judgement and relving upon the saidjudgenient, learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to emphasize the'faef.'that there was no re^q|)(iflghg|Aj^||tqj|^|tifii!iieve the evidence.tea.ffiby the proset5|it||ra!<swilfiesses, parfici3'lluSy{ag?thie^ officers:l:;'o^. the ElectiCij|a,f|?"Woard and, therefore,-;:t;Ke judg8tMBK.s;of acquittal gnajBgld by the Court bel0»c,,cteser\wis^to be set asideW'^d!.., '..„.,./

¶65

^ .

¶66

.: However, in the i'i;i;^(a]MS.:j®S||3!^,t|Ke said judgement"!c:ctn.oot'be made applicable for theygag<a|Ky|}2!aE't}ie' finding of the Court.below was not that the witnesgeSi ani ygl'ialf: of the prosecution'; were :not retiable'bia.t the finding ogjti3.g'©eH|;ct.:was'that the depositj.6ri'Yofi e prosecution^witness^{\ya?;'-6l?t&1aeyE'7e£:!(;:bytheCourt.'onaceoi-trit'Qf} various contradictions W^gvyassf^iSre amongst the evicterices' pf the prosecution witnesses ancr'^tTis.feenefit of which given-^o Ithfi •accused person. As'such the. said'';judgement cannotbe^:rriade : cvpplicable to the.facts of the instaKtiCiase. j ,1

¶67

(12) SirHilarly, learn.ed Counsel for;:'t.he Appellant in'additiDn has also relied upon the 'following judgements with regard.jto-^the disbelieving of the'prosGcufionwito:^sses;: ,: ;^iLI:.:' i;;^: • 2013 Cr.L.J. (NOC). 441 ;!(KAR.) - Ningappa.Partnffl-iiia Curikar'Vs. State,. • i,':;';:' • -•'.-•- ••i.'1:

¶68

• 2006 (2) Cr.L.J. 1121- Radha.MoKan Singh Vs. State of U:.P,,

¶69

• AIR 2002 SC 1621 .- Bhagwan'Bmgh' & Ors Vs. State o.£;,M.P.' • 2006 (10) SCC 617 {Para-Sj-y'V.N. Ratheesh Vs,;State:.^( Kerala. '. . '-•,i.:;;, , ,;.^ l.,,l....l.,;li',

¶70

•These judgements have been'eited by the learned.:Co!unsel

¶71

for_the Appellant to show the^.pQwers of the High ;Court.^O

¶72

interfere in a judgement of acquiftall iEi the event if tbe'fin'dirig

-10-

'^.

arrived at by the Court below is;:perverse, contrary "fo: ewi'£leri,e§. However, if we -peruse'the findirig;,G)f the Court bel@w'13|il,w6i.ild cleariy show that the ;:Court belbw^jin fact has corisiclerey ;the evidences which have come befor^ffie Court below vei3',CTtinUjtely and has reached to a conclusion'on the basis of thelassessm.ent made. Thus, it cannot be said th'at:the findings are baseless: Qr are contrary to the evidence on record. As such, the judgements cited by the Counsel fbr the Appelllant would not be of any assistance to the Appellant in the facfs of the present case, ,, :.

¶78

(13) It is settled position of lawJ"tKat in an appeal agaiast an order of acqui,y[glkgS,Tgll!g'|t®^eiS|g^a^jCases where fherer'are compellingSci'fciltKfances and th,g1j(tffgr3|en|°'||-inderlappfial.:is fou )Wfc perverse can the App^llate CourT^jiy-5,rel'w:ith'the acquittal. Re9. ^G;'the Supren'i?8>^y:!jl;'mjthe of Phula Singh Vtij iijfechal Pradesh,., AI»i"SQ. -——14.SG-,.^^^ 1256, m Para-10, hasfjijg; Besorical<&""~'"' term."'""' held""-" fhat::'i"!i"•"-•- r ?he-^ appellate' Court should b^af 'tdAthe presumptidn ofivvwcenae of the accused and furthSf, |^p..-tnaiS8zi • ^ Court's acquittat, ' i-;^.:^ol.siers. ; the presumption ofhi^tfCm^ESSfffi'lfS^Fference in a routine mcm.ner vjhere the other'view'i.'SSSSSSiSKQuld be avoided, unless theye are good reasons for inte'l (14) 'Once there is an order of acqui.ttal. in favOur'pf'f'healI.eged accused person, the same shoulEl^';not be interfered -witKj ysry lighfly. unless there 'is a prima ,laci& stron-g case wifh 'cogecif, sufficient and substantial proofrin'-^favour 'of the prcisectifiQn • brought before the Court belovv''fand . which has ciQt.::.?t3.e.e&'considered or has been overlooked''bw,the'CDurt below^on'h^.ffiEa7!,. • can the order of acquilital have. a scopie ;' i; ' ofinterference.. '''--•' ' • ''..:'•• ; f' ^,^^!,^' "• . • . The law in this reeard'is bv'.no'w'well' settled iri',;a:series;oT judgement of the Hon'b'l.e.-SupremeiCourt'wherein the'Supneime . Court has in very categorical'terrris'.iheld that^whenGver,ttl?rfi;l:is.. an order of acquitta], the higher :(Sbui;ts'not to upset.the'KQicli-Ftg^' without'there being very convincihg'reasons and coriTprehensrYe considera:tions. • • ::::.: • T"

'ii •'; <

's^sg^W^fSiSS

11-

That while reappi-eciating an®M-econsidering^he^^eyidSnee upon which the order of acquitted is based, cei~)Eain[i''!:Q;titTi@F ..principles pertaining to,other facet;s;:are to be borne in.'nti'Fui^' •,: jl~': ' An appellate Court, howevei^T raiust bear in rninel:fl'iali,;'jq case of acquittal, there is double ,pi^esumption in faYqyr'pfthe accused. Firstly, thepresumption of innocence is avaiIaBle t6':hirh under the fundamental principle ;of criminal jurisprudence fhat every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless He is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his inho;cence is further reinforcegl»ffSa.l»~1felMarS3stasn.gthened bv-;:the Jtrial

¶83

?preasonable: conclusiohs 4.re POSsiWy'igJ!yW-He.lbasis •of Sklence on record.,r-y^^jS,|)gl-l@jte Court shouW"a<|^..,.distui]b thMinding of the acqiSitj^li|g^||d|fcy the trial Court.-iffhe'High. Court is also required.jtgj|g®}]:gi®.ffinlessthere are s'Libstajitial and compelling circumSf^PSfB'W'16'. order. of acquittal is not • required to be reversedlii3^^^^4Y;i1.,-•';',; '."'• -;'lrl:!;, ', ; It is trite here tg"r8£grijt;g^aitfig^ decisions in this regard by ! l^ the Hon'ble Supreme

¶84

2007 (4) SCC 415-'r<£K1{hWi§ipav;.Statej3f'KamatateiJ'i:\ '. •' • 2012 (1) SCC 602 - SfateofRaja.sthan.v/ShfiraRaml1;',-1

¶85

201-3 (5) SCC 705 - Shiyashanariappa v. State OfKamata.Ka.

¶86

• AIR 2009 SC 1 542 tPara. l;2^;:State' .of Furyab ^ SukhcK.ain ^. •'.-"..;•,•-.'-

¶87

Singh &Anr. r';

¶88

• 2012 (6) SCC 589 (Para-27)'-';Rohtash v;'State.of.H9:i-yana,;,. (15) Thus, for tfae foregoijig/reasohs, 'this...Cburt:is..bf^the considered view that'. tKe findirig arriyed' at by the e'oui-t:bel©wis purely in accordance with •law;^an'd'the 'eourt'.belQW'^has not conimitted any error Qflaw •in'reaehijng to the said CQrielusionhQf acquitting the Respondent Qf/the^.'chgrge'leveled again;stlhim; ':• under Section 135 of-tl'ie;Electoidty,%cty 2Q03, . • ''! .! •'-,.!

¶89

(16)'*The Appeal thus fails. and is'; aceording^ dismissed^being-

¶90

./sky/.

¶91

;- totally devoid ofmerits.

¶92

Sd/P.SamKoshy Judge '•f ^;',,...... R-; ^y;..:

Assistant Engineer,Cseb v. Nandlal Binjhwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assistant Engineer,Cseb v. Nandlal Binjhwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bata India Ltd. Vs Manohar Singhdeadth.Lr'S Balbir andORS

M/s a.s.advertisers Vs Municipal Corporation, Raipur And Anr.

Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. Vs Sunai Bai Dadsena

Sahodradevi and Ors. Vs Radhadevi and Anr.

Harendra Vs Narsingh and Others

Chandra Prakash Vs Ramawatar and Others