MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision petition is preferred against the ju-dgment of the learned trial Court whereby it has acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 420, IPC.
(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for deciding this revision petition are that petitioner Hanuman Prasad filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. with the allegations inter-alia that he had good relations with the accused respondents, who had come to his place in village Devroad on 2. 8. 90 with a proposal to purchase an agricultural land situated adjacent to their lands in village Kherla and they also re-quested to provide them loan of Rs. 44,000/-which was given by him to them with the understanding to repay the same within 15 days. After a lapse of aforesaid 15 days, when the complainant was not repaid aforesaid loan amount by the accused-respondents, he went to the place of the accused with the reminder to make repayment of the amount but all in vain and one day on 1. 9. 1990, accused-respon-dent No. 1 alongwith his friend whom he did not know, came to his house situated in his agricultural field when he was told that they could not arrange the amount and requested to accept a cheque so as to encash it through bank on 3. 9. 90. Thereafter accused-respondent No. 2 Mahavir Prasad after taking cheque No. AE 637404 from his friend who was accompanying him at that time, delivered it to the complainant. However, when the complainant went to the bank on 3. 9. 90 alongwith that cheque and presented in the SBBJ Branch Jhunjhunu for encashment, its Manager told him that payment of that cheque could not be made because from the records of the bank it was not known as to who had issued the cheque and apparently it was forged. As a result of this, the complainant got disappointed and he started searching accused respondents out of whom Mahavir Prasad met him after 11 days of efforts and assured him to get its payment made through bank by going personally with him next day but again thereafter the accused disappeared for long spell of time. Accordingly the complainant left with no option, presented that cheque in his account being maintained by the Bank of Baroda at Chirawa which sent the cheque to SBBJ Branch Jhunjhunu wherefrom it was returned back dishonoured on 15. 1. 91 with the endorsement to furnish better particulars of account holder of the cheque or as to the identity of the person who had issued that cheque. All these circumstances according to the complainant cost serious apprehension that the cheque was apparently forged due to some deliberate mis-chief on the part of the accused and since he could not get the repayment of the money advanced to them, the complainant finally intimated the accused that in case the amount due to him by way of loan is not repaid, he will be compelled to take necessary action in accordance with law. Even inspite of this, the accused respondents are alleged to have flatly refused to repay the amount and hence the complainant filed the criminal complaint with the aforesaid allegations before the learned trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC vide Criminal Case No. 14/98. After usual investigation, the Investigating Agency filed the challan with the trial Court for taking cognizance against the accused for aforesaid offences. Thereupon the learned trial Court took cognizance and framed charge against the accused-respondents for offence punishable under Section 420, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. No cognizance was taken by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and documents Ex. 1 to Ex. 7 were got exhibited in support of its case. Thereafter, the statements of accused were recor-ded. One Laduram was examined as DW 1 in support of their defence by the accused and documents Ex. D. 1 to Ex. D. 12 were got exhibited in defence. After hearing the parties and perusing the relevant record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC by the impugned judgment. Hence this revision petition is filed by the complainant. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the findings recorded by the learned trial court in its order dated 14. 12. 1998 (impugned) with reference to the legal position and the contentions urged on behalf of the complainant. Main thrust of arguments on behalf of the complainant by Shri Kajla, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused are not sustainable in the eyes of law as they are based on surmises, conjectures, misreading and non-reading of the material evidence and that apart the learned trial Court ought to have examined Prahlad who was alleged to be author, of the cheque because without his testimoney the trial stood vitiated resulting in miscarriage of justice. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant. The impugned-order of acquittal is based on the findings recorded by the learned trial Court to the effect that the complainant had given double version of his case on which no reliance could be placed. The prosecution case also suffers from glaring infirmities apart from material contradiction in evidence of witnesses who have not supported the compainant's version. Besides some of the prosecution witnesses also did not support the prosecution case like Shishupal (PW3) who was declared hostile and PW 8 Om Prakash Manager of the Bank. Notwithstanding the prosecution case that the accused had deliberately presented the cheque to the complainant of Rs. 44,000/-which they knew that it would be returned back dishonoured if presented to the Bank, yet the learned trial court observed that this aspect of the matter was not established by corroborative or independent evidence and since there were material contradictions in the prosecution evidence which did not fully support its own case, which rendered the possibility of a duality of views and therefore, if two reasonable views of the evidence are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused be adopted by giving benefit of doubt to him. Thus viewed from aforesaid angle, prima-facie, I am of the considered view that the findings of fact should not be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with S. 401 Cr. P. C. unless there is apparent illegality on the face of the impugned acquittal warranting such interference and especially when two reasonable views of the evidence are possible, the mens-rea or criminal intent on the part of the accused cannot be assumed. There is no corroborative evidence to support the version of the complainant regarding the fact as to what was the nature of the dispute he had with the accused respondents and in what connection a cheque of Rs. 44,000/-was presented to him, inasmuch as from the material on record, it is doubtful as to whether the cheque in question was at all given by the accused to the complainant and if so what were those sparing reasons for the complainant which prevented him by invoking provi-sions of Sections 137 or 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by presenting a complaint against the accused. Perhaps, it appears that the complainant has been ill-advised to prefer the complaint for offences under Sections 406 & 420, IPC and since the complainant could not get substantial piece of evidence in support of his case, in my view, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused respon-dents after taking cognizance against them for offence punishable under Section 420, IPC. Besides, the ingredients of offence having itself not been established, no presumption of guilt could be drawn against the accused, who in my view have been rightly acquitted of the charge.
(3.) SHRI Kajla has relied upon the decisions in B. B. Bhu Sannavar vs. L. S. Sam-agouda (1) and Akalu Ahir vs. Ramdeo Ram In Akalu Ahir's case (supra), the Apex Court observed with regard to the safeguards which should be observed by the High Court when approached by the private party for exercising its revisional powers against an order of acquittal under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr. P. C. as under: " The High Court when approached by a private party for exercising its power of revision from an order of acquittal, should appropriately refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature which has resulted in gave failure of justice. The power being discretionary, it has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial Court in the course of trial, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct the retrial of the acquitted accused person. " Since in the instant case, there is glaring error apparent on the face of record which may justify any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction nor there is any failure of justice nor it is a case of injustice resulting from violation of fundamental principles of law to be followed by the trial Court while dealing with complaint for offence under Section 420, IPC, of which the acc-used respondents have been acquitted, I am consequently of the view that the findings of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court do not warrant any interference. As a result of the above discussion, this revision petition being devoid of any substance is dismissed and the impugned-order of the trial Court dated 14. 12. 1998 is upheld. . ;