Decided on June 18,2013

State of Uttaranchal and another Respondents


- (1.) Present criminal revision was filed against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2006, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge / VI FTC, Dehradun in criminal appeal no. 21 of 2006, captioned as Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs State of Uttaranchal and another, allowing the appeal, filed on behalf of accused / opposite party, and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.05.2006, passed by Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Dehradun, convicting the accused / opposite party for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/- upon the accused / opposite party.
(2.) A complaint was filed by Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Advocate, against Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, his clerk, in respect of the offence punishable under 2 Section 420 of IPC. According to the complainant, he was a practicing lawyer in Dehradun and accused was his clerk (munshi). On 01.01.2001, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from him for his personal needs, saying that he will return the money within two months. The complainant asked the accused to give it in writing and summoned him the next day. On 02.01.2001, accused came to the complainant and made his signatures on a stamp paper, assuring the complainant that the money will be repaid very soon. The complainant repeatedly made a demand to the accused to pay back the money, but to no avail. Hence, the complaint.
(3.) The statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Having found a prima facie case against the accused, he was summoned to face the trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. After the evidence of the complainant under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., a charge against the accused was framed in respect of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused stated that because he worked as clerk in the office of the complainant, when he demanded his remuneration, the complainant said that he would be falsely implicated in the case. Nothing was given by the accused in writing. Neither did he execute the agreement, nor did he append his signatures on any document. Learned trial court relied upon the evidence of the complainant as also the document (Ext. Ka-1) purportedly signed by the accused in this behalf. Learned trial court said in his judgment dated 16.05.2006, that the accused did not bring any handwriting expert to show that he did not append his signatures on the questioned document. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun was of the view that the accused was working as clerk with the complainant, he was aware of the handwriting of the accused and therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by the complainant. Learned Magistrate was of the view that the accused had intention to cheat the complainant from the very beginning and therefore, held him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The accused preferred criminal appeal against the order dated 16.05.2006. The criminal appeal was decided by learned Addl. Sessions Judge / VI FTC, Dehradun, vide order dated 22.08.2006. Learned lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 22.08.2006, present criminal revision was preferred.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.