AMIR SINGH Vs. HAMID
LAWS(ALL)-1986-11-7
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 05,1986

AMIR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
HAMID Respondents

JUDGEMENT

O.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Amir Singh complainant against the judgment and order dated 6-1.0-1970 passed by the Munsif/Magistrate First Class, Muzaffarnagar acquitting the respondents for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPG,
(2.) THERE is no dispute that plot no. 785/2 of village Amir Nagar P. S. Titavi District Muzaffarnagar originally belonged to Habib Ahmad. He sold the said plot to Subhash Chandra, Smt. Prem Lata and Om Prakash, respondent nos. 2 to 4, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Subsequently the said plot was sold by respondent nos. 2 to 4 in favour of complaisant Amir Singh on 25-4-1969 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Subsequently the complainant came to know that the said land was mortgaged to Bhoomi Nibandhak Tatha Vikas Bank, Muzaffarnagar. The said Bank took steps for sale of the property and the complainant had to pay Rs. 9562/- to the Bank. The complainant then filed the present complaint alleging that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Baijnath (Tahsildar), who was husband of respondent no. 2, had full knowledge of the fact that the property was encumbered with the said Bank but still they defrauded the complainant by selling the same in his favour without disclosing the fact that the property was already encumbered with the Bank. All the accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they had sold the property in favour of the complainant in the same manner in which the same had been purchased by them. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself (PW 1), Purna (PW 2) and Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Field Officer of the aforesaid Bank as PW 3. The accused persons did not adduce any evidence.
(3.) THE learned Magistrate having acquitted the respondents, the present appeal has been filed by Amir Singh complainant, So far as respondent no. 1 Hamid is concerned, he died during the pendency of this appeal and consequently the appeal against him has abated. Even otherwise, there was no case against him because the main allegations made by the complainant were directed against respondent nos. 2 to 5.;


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