1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.250-SBA of 1997.
Date of Decision: 10.12.2008
***
State of Haryana
.. Appellant
Vs.
Akhtar Hussain & Ors.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Dilbagh Singh, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The State has filed the instant appeal against the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh dated
14.9.1996 in respect of the respondents.
The respondents were booked in case FIR No.21 dated
25.7.1985 for the offences under Sections 409, 408, 420, 467, 471, 120-B
IPC by the State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon with the allegations that they
all in conspiracy with each other and by impersonation, forged the record
and committed embezzlement of cash amount and fertilizers etc. of the
Cooperative Society. According to the prosecution respondent Kallu and
Idrish impersonated as Asru and Abdul Razzak and got encashed two
cheques of different amount and got fertilizers from the society and Akhtar
Hussain and Jaan Mohmmad, being the employees of Society were
instrumental in all this forgery. The respondent Akhtar Hussain was charged
under Section 408 IPC, while charge under Section 419 IPC was framed
against respondent Kallu and Idrish, besides respondent Akhtar Hussain and
Jaan Mohd. were charge-sheeted for having committed an offence under
Section 468, 471, 120-B IPC. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial, as
said above, acquitted the accused-respondents.
2
It is apt to reproduce the observations given by the learned trial
court in para No.9 of the impugned judgment, while acquitting the
respondents l:-
“9. There is force in the contention of ld. Counsel for
the accused. In this case preliminary enquiry was
conducted by Birpal, Inspector, State Vigilance Bureau,
Gurgaon and he came to the conclusion that Sh. Akhtar
Hussain and Rajpal are the main accused of this case,
but the reasons best known to the prosecution as to why
Rajpal has not been arrested in this case. No doubt, the
prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses but
the evidence of the Rajpal and Ganga Ram is material
one because Rajpal has admitted that the matter was
referred to arbitrator and the award has already been
given vide which he has also been asked to pay half or
the amount alleged to have been misappropriated in this
case. Admittedly, PW Asru and Abdul Razak not raised
any loan from the Society. This has been done by Akhtar
Hussain and Rajpal. The arbitrator has already given
award in this case and Akhtar Hussain and Rajpal have
been asked to make the payment of the amount alleged to
have been mis-appropriated in this case. Once the award
has been given by the arbitrator the same is as good as
the decree of a civil court and the accused cannot be
charge-sheeted for the criminal liability of the same.
Taking into consideration the ratio of the authority on
which reliance is being placed by the counsel for the
accused, I am of the considered view that prosecution
has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubts against any of the accused. I extend
the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit them and
file be consigned to record room.”
The above-said observations made by the learned trial court
3
leaves no manner of doubt that the court while taking into account the fact
that the Arbitrator had passed the award and thereby put the burden on
respondent Akhtar Hussain and one Rajpal to make the payment of alleged
mis-appropriated amount and that the Asru and Abdul Razzak, who were
allegedly impersonated by respondent Kallu and Idrish admittedly had not
obtained any loan from the society, held that no criminal liability can be
fastened upon the respondent-accused. The learned trial court, further while
relying upon the case law reported as Janak Raj Vs. State of Punjab 1979
CLR (P&H) 236, concluded that initiation of criminal proceedings against
the accused-respondents after the award of the Arbitrator are bad and
accordingly after extending benefit of doubt the respondent-accused were
rightly acquitted of the aforesaid charges. The High Court ought not to
interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is
perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the learned trial court is neither perverse nor
unreasonable and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on
irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, there is no merit
in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
December 10,2008
Jiten