Dismissed

Ganga Ram Son of Shri Govind Ram by Caste Ahir v. State of

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2024CRLA/180/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court (Rajasthan) dismissed an appeal against acquittal under Section 408 IPC. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused was a clerk or servant, a mandatory condition for the offence, warranting acquittal.

What did the court decide?

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 180/1991 dismissed; pending applications disposed of; Trial Court record returned.

Ganga Ram Son of Shri Govind Ram by Caste… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 180/1991.

¶3

Ganga Ram son of Shri Govind Ram, aged about 57 years, resident of Kishangarh Renwarl, District Jaipur.

¶4

----Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan.

¶7

Kalyan son of Shri Pooranmal, resident of near Railway crossing, Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sankalp Sogani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

08/04/2024

¶12

The present appeal under Section 378 sub-clause (4) Cr.P.C has been submitted by the complainant appellant (herein after referred to as “the appellant” against the impugned judgment dated 22.01.1990, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in Criminal Case No.608/1982 by which the accused respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 408 IPC. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the accused respondent alleging therein that he is running a brick-kiln and the accused used to collect the wages from the labourers and misuse the amount received by him and when, the accused was asked to give the details of the account, he became aggressive and refused to return the amount to the complainant.

¶13

[CRLA-180/1991]

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

The complaint filed by the petitioner was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to Police Station, Renwal, where after investigating, final report (negative) was submitted, however, the same was not accepted by the Trial Court and cognizance was taken against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 408 IPC, and thereafter charges were framed against him for the above offences. During the course of trial the complainant examined as many as five witnesses in support of his case and in defence the accused respondent examined one witness. After appreciation of the material available on the record, the Trial Court acquitted the accused respondent of the charges levelled against him.

¶16

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the appellant has approached this Court by way of filing this petition.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was ample evidence against the accused respondent for punishing him for the offence under Section 408 IPC but misreading and misinterpreting the evidence available on the record the benefit of doubt has been given to the accused respondent. Counsel submits that under these circumstances interference of this Court is warranted.

¶18

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶19

Perusal of the record indicates that no evidence was produced on the record as to whether the accused-respondent was working with the complainant-appellant in the capacity of clerk or servant and none of the witnesses have proved this material

¶20

[CRLA-180/1991]

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

aspect of the matter. It is worthy to note here that for prosecuting a person for the offence under Section 408 IPC, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that the alleged person was working in the capacity of clerk or servant during the course of employment. But herein the instant case, no such evidence was adduced by the prosecution and appreciating all these facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of doubt has been given to the accused-appellant.

¶23

After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the definite conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accusedrespondent beyond reasonable doubt and a finding of fact was recorded by acquitting the accused-respondent of the charges levelled against him.

¶24

This Court is of the considered opinion that the finding arrived at by the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on the record. This Court does not find any error in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court, either factual or legal, requiring any interference.

¶25

In this background, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶26

All the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. The record of the Trial Court be returned back.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

DIKSHA MISHRA /1

Ganga Ram Son of Shri Govind Ram by Caste Ahir v. State of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Ram Son of Shri Govind Ram by Caste Ahir v. State of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra S/O Shri Prabhulal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Omprakash S/O Shri Brijmohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Kumar S/O Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Vs Jawahar Singh and Ors.

Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs State

Rajendra Singh Rawat S/O Shri Shyam Singh Rawat Vs Satbir Singh S/O Shri Gurucharan Singh