Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/124/2000 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 124 of 2000
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ? NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO
=========================================================
CHINTANKUMAR
NAVINCHANDRA ZAVERI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BJ TRIVEDI for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR JT TRIVEDI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MS CHETNA
SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,4 - 5.
M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 22/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.
The petitioner is the original complainant. In this revision
application he has challenged legality of the judgment of acquittal
dated 30.12.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Botad in Criminal Case No.458 of 1996.
2.
Respondents No.2 to 5 were the original accused. The offences
alleged against them are punishable under Sections 323, 504 read
with Sec.114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Bombay Police
Act. By the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate acquitted all
the accused.
3.
Initially this revision application was admitted by this Court and
was ordered to be heard with Criminal Appeal No.409 of 2000 (State
appeal against acquittal). Subsequently on 27.7.2001 the learned
Single Judge of this Court, since had dismissed the State appeal as
time barred, dismissed the present revision application also since
the same was ordered to be heard along with State appeal. This order
was carried in appeal by the petitioner before the Apex Court and the
order dated 27.7.2001 was set aside and the proceedings were remanded
for fresh consideration on merits by the Apex Court by an order dated
22.4.2002.
4.
Though Record & Proceedings was called for from the trial
court, it appears that due to passage of time, substantial portion of
Record & Proceedings have been destroyed. Counsel for the
petitioner is able to reconstruct part of evidence by producing the
record, deposition of some witnesses which were available with the
complainant. However, full record was not available before me.
5.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court committed
a serious error in acquitting all the accused though there were
eye-witnesses account of the alleged evidence. He, therefore,
submitted that the revision application should be allowed.
6.
On the other hand, counsel for the accused opposed the revision
application contending that the scope of revision is limited; order
of acquittal is recorded on the basis of evidence available, no case
for interference is made out.
7.
With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, I have perused the judgment under challenge and also the
documents available. It may be noted that the alleged incident was of
the year 1996, the learned Magistrate had, after full fledged trial,
after recording the evidence of the witnesses found that there were
major discrepancies in the eye-witnesses account. Panch witness had
turned hostile. Notification under the Bombay Police Act was not
produced. On all counts, therefore, the learned Magistrate was of
the opinion that the charges levelled against the accused for the
offences under Secs.323, 504 read with Sec.114 of Indian Penal Code
and Sec.135 of Bombay Police Act are not proved.
8.
In particular, I find that the complainant’s evidence suffers from
number of self-contradictions noticed by the learned Magistrate in
the impugned judgment. There were no independent witnesses. The
learned Magistrate, therefore, found unsafe to convict any of the
accused.
9.
Considering above aspects of the matter and considering the scope
of revision against judgment of acquittal, I am of the opinion that
no case for interference is made out. Considering all these aspects
of the matter and the reasons indicated by the learned Magistrate for
recording judgment of acquittal and the incident had taken place way
back in the year 1996, I do not find it a fit case where revisional
powers can be exercised. Hence, this Revision Applciation is
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )
syed/
Top