Complaint Appeal No. 1 of 1999 (R)
Against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.07.1998 passed by Shri Vijai Bahadur Mall,
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chas (Bokaro) in Complaint Case No. 41 of
1986.
..................
Alimuddin Ansari ... ... ...Complainant/Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. Farid Ansari
2. Mohd. Suleman Ansari
3. Nizamuddin Ansari
4. Abul Kalam Ansari
5. Sarif Ansari
6. Gulam Ansari
7. Tahir Ansari
8. Pir Ali Ansari
9. Zerali Ansari
10. Idrish Ansari
11. Ibrahim Ansari
12. Samin Ansari
13. Mehrun Bibi
14. Rahamgool Ansari
15. Jaigun Bibi
16. Abul Basar Ansari
17. Tajamul Ansari
18. Murtaza Ansari ... ... ... Accused Persons/ Opp. Parties/
Respondents
19. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
For the Complainant : M/s. Dr. H. Waris, M.I. Khan Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
..................
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
By Court: Heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by
the Shri Vijai Bahadur Mall, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Chas, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 41 of 1986 by which judgment he
acquitted the respondents-accused persons.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that
although it has been mentioned by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate
in his judgment at Para 9 that there was certified copies of surrender order
and certified copies of the sale deeds but they have not been considered
2
only because they were not marked as an exhibit. Learned counsel
appearing for the complainant submitted that certified copy of surrender
and certified copy of other documents need no proof and they should
have been considered and that is why the judgment is bad in law and fit to
be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties oppose the complainant
and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove their
case and the court below rightly acquitted the opposite parties.
5. After hearing both the parties and going through the record it
appears that the complainant made out a case that the property schedule
in the complaint belong to one Most. Goura and that property was
inherited by her nephew Babu Mahato. Babu Mahato had surrendered the
entire property along with Dar Raity lands in favour of Khairat Ali
Ahmad the grand father of the complainant with the permission of
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag in the year 1919 but the
accused Rahman Ansari who is the only son of late Babu Mahato had sold
the property to different accused persons who are respondent nos. 1 to 18.
6. Thus, the prosecution in order to succeed was required to prove
that the original photocopy of land holder Most. Goura whose property
was inherited by her nephew Babu Mahato, who surrendered the
property to the Deputy Commissioner, which was settled to the grand
father of the complainant. The complainant examined only two witnesses
i.e. P.W. 1 Haji Samsuddin Ansari, who in his cross-examination said that
he knows nothing about the surrender of the land. P.W. 2 Alimuddin
Ansari stated that no surrender was done in his presence. The learned
counsel for the appellant has made stress on the point that he had filed
certified copy of the surrender certificate but it appears that the
complainant by the list of document dated 11.12.1986 had only filed some
photocopy of the sale deed thereafter again on 07.08.1996, the complainant
has filed certified copy of sale deeds but no surrender certificate was filed
by the complainant nor proved. The complainant has stated that
surrender certificate was on record but I find that only some torn
photocopy is available on record filed by the accused persons.
7. In that view of the matter, in absence of proof of surrender of the
land by the original owner Babu Mahato who inherited the property from
Most. Goura. The prosecution case has not been proved and his claim that
3
the other side wrongly sold the property by making forgery stand no leg
to stand.
8. In that view of the matter, the judgment of acquittal was rightly
passed by the Shri Vijai Bahadur Mall, learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Chas, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 41 of 1986 cause no
interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, this Complaint Appeal is dismissed.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 19th November, 2009
Anit/N.A.F.R.