Dismissed

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Gopal Ram

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2018CRLA/106/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an acquittal under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur dismissed the appellant's petition, holding the trial court's findings were not perverse and no interference against acquittal was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against acquittal was dismissed and the impugned order dated 18.12.1993 was upheld.

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs Gopal Ram — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

J f

¶2

HIG'H COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 106 / 1995

¶4

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jhunjhunu

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gopal Ram son of Hari Ram

¶7

For Appellant(s) : Nmqmsent , -..> t For Respondent(s) *: Mr. Sanjeev Mahla For the State Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor

¶8

H0N"BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

/ Order

¶10

' ,* 4 11/01/2018

¶11

Instant appeal has been preferred by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in order to assail the impugned order dated 18.12.1993 passed by the Additional Chief Judici.al ~agistra'ce, Jhunjhunu, whereby the accused-respondent - Gopalram was acquitted.

¶12

The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti instituted a complaint under Sections 28 (2) and 28 (3) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce I 1 B Marketing Act by alleging that the respondent/firm had deliberately defaulted in depositing the market fee amounting to Rs.5138.28 only.

¶13

The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, vide its impugned judgment dated 18.12.1993, recorded acquittal of respondent - Gopalram son of Hariram, Proprietor of the Firm Gopalram Hariram Chhavi Bazar, Police Station Jhunjhunu District Jhunjhunu.

¶14

Aggrieved against the acquittal, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jhunjhunu filed an application for grant of leave to appeal, which was accepted and the appeal was assigned the present number.

¶15

¶16

The Id. trial Judge heid' the evidence of the complainant to be contradictory and accepted that the amount was deposited by the respondent to the clerk - Bhagwan Singh of the Mandi. The cheque, in question has been proved on record as ExhibitlD.1. The complainantHarish Chand, in cross-examination, has contended that no cheque was deposited, however, when he was confronted with the factum of the cheque, the complainant evadely said that the outstanding amount of Rs.5138.28 may have been ., due C as a double amount. I -

¶17

The reikonings given by the Id. trial-Judge .: d cannot be termed as perverse. The view formulated by the Id. trial Judge is one view, which is possible on the facts and circumstances of the case, hence, in the present case, against acquittal no interference is warranted.

¶18

,. , 4%

¶19

,+ .** F r' onsequerftly,. the piiient.;appiicdtin :. -, for grant of leave to

¶20

appeal, being devoid of merits is dismissed.

¶21

(KANWALJIT <VGH AHLUWAL1A)J.

¶22

ashok

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Gopal Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Gopal Ram

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

Taufik Khan @ Dhanpat Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

State of Rajasthan Vs Shivraj Singh and Ors.

State of Rajasthan Vs Shivraj Singh and Ors.

Ramjya @ Ramji Lal Vs State

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dayal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.