Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008
Date of decision: 17.2.2009
Kanti Lal Shah
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
PRESENT: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Addl. AG, Punjab
for the State.
***
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present criminal revision has been filed against judgment
dated 17.12.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby
Jai Kishan Chhabra and Sanjiv Kumar,respondents No.2 and 3, have been
acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 406 IPC.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that Shilpi Industries Surat
had a business dealing with Jyoti Textiles Amritsar. The proprietors of
Jyoti Textile are Jai Kishan Chhabra and his son Sanjiv Kumar, who are
respondents in the present petition. As per statement of Parkash Narang,
Manager of Shilpi Industries, the cloth was being sent by Shilpi Industries
to Jyoti Textiles and entire cloth used to go through Green Roadways
Transport, Amritsar. In the year 1999, Jai Kishan Chhabra and Sanjiv
Chhabra (respondents No.2 and 3) closed their shop and Rakesh Narang
Manager of Shilpi Industries, had asked them to make the payments of
Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008 [2]
previous bills which comes to Rs.11,64,306/- but the respondents showed
their inability to make payment. Thereafter, Shilpi Industries came to know
that the respondents started a new firm by the name and style of
‘J.J.Textiles’ and in December 1999, they declared their firm insolvent and
in connivance with the Cloth Associations, they cleared the dues of parties
at the rate of 25 paise but no information was given to Shilpi Industries.
The Manager of Shilpa Industries approached the Cloth Merchant
Association, Amritsar and respondent No.2 gave in writing that they owed
Rs.11,64,306/- to Shilpi Industries and till the registration of the case,
nothing was paid by the accused. During investigation, allegations were
found to be correct and the case was registered against accused-respondents
No.2 and 3. During investigation, it was found that cloth was supplied to
the petitioner through Green Carrier Transport through self bilti.A petition
was also filed by accused-respondents for quashing of FIR in the High
Court where proceedings of the case were stayed but ultimately the petition
was dismissed.
On completion of the investigation and other formalities,
challan was put in Court and on finding a prima facie case, charge under
Section 406 IPC was framed against the respondents.
After hearing the arguments, the trial Court vide order dated
17th December, 2007, acquitted the accused-respondents of the charge
framed against them. Hence, the present criminal revision has been filed by
the complainant against the order of acquittal of the accused-respondents.
Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the
trial Court had closed the prosecution evidence without examining the most
important witness namely, Rakesh Narang, in spite of an application
Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008 [3]
supported by medical certificate having been filed as he was suffering from
a serious ailment. The trial Court without taking into consideration that fact
had closed the prosecution evidence and the accused -respondents were
acquitted of the charge because of non-examination of the said witness. He
further argued that the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused has
observed that the prosecution was not able to show entrustment which was
essential ingredient under Section 405 IPC. It is submitted that while
arriving at this finding, the trial Court had not taken into account the ample
evidence on record showing entrustment of the goods to the accused.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment dated 17.12.2007 passed by the trial Court.
The trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents
and no case under Section 405 IPC was made out as the only document
relied upon by the petitioner was a letter Annexure PW-4/A written to SSP,
Amritsar, by Kanti Lal Shah for getting payment and on that basis, a case
under Section 406 IPC was registered. The petitioner did not produce any
other document to show that any business transaction between the parties
had taken place and no bills or bilitties were placed on record to prove such
transactions. Nothing has come out from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2
and the prosecution has totally failed to prove the offence under Section 405
IPC. The trial Court observed on the basis of the statements of the
prosecution witnesses and the document produced on record that no case
under Section 405 IPC was made out. Moreover, the trial Court has rightly
observed that the petitioner should have availed a civil remedy for recovery
of the said amount.
Crl.Revision No. 1050 of 2008 [4]
For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any legal
infirmity to interfere in the order of the trial Court.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
( DAYA CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
February 17, 2009
raghav