Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANAND PARKASH versus LAXAMI NARAIN & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anand Parkash v. Laxami Narain & Ors - CRM-668-MA-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 236 (11 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Criminal Misc. No.668-MA of 2006

Date of decision: 15.01.2007

Anand Parkash

-----Appellant.

Vs.

Laxami Narain and others

-----Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA

Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocat

for the appellant.

-----

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

This application has been filed for leave to appeal by the complainant with a view to challenge acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 5 under Sections 342, 348, 365, 452, 506, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 stand convicted in the follow manner:- Name of the accused Offence and sentence Laxmi Narain RI for six months for offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.

RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 365

IPC.

RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 452

IPC.

RI for six months for offence under

Section 506 IPC.

RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/-

under Section 120-B IPC.

Criminal Misc. No.668-MA of 2006

Lalit Chugh RI for six months for offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.

RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 365

IPC.

RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 452

IPC.

RI for six months for offence under

Section 506 IPC.

RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/-

under Section 120-B IPC.

Ram Chander Indora RI for six months for offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.

RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 365

IPC.

RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 452

IPC.

RI for six months for offence under

Section 506 IPC.

RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/-

under Section 120-B IPC.

RI for three years and fine of Rs.500/-

for offence punishable under Sectio 27

of Arms Act.

Rajender Kapoor RI for six months for offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.

RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 365

IPC.

RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 452

IPC.

RI for six months for offence under

Section 506 IPC.

RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/-

under Section 120-B IPC.

Pag

e

num

bers

Criminal Misc. No.668-MA of 2006

The case of the complainant is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and doing electronic business and the complainant is also doing the same business. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are functionaries of M/s Kalyani Sharp India Limited, dealing with electronic items. The complainant was also a dealer of M/s Kalyani Sharp India Limited. Respondent No.1 had given some amount to respondent No.4, which was misappropriated in 1991 by him. At the instance of respondent No.1, the complainant was illegally detained by the police at Police Station, City Bhiwani for more than 6 hours and was forced to pay a sum of Rs.48,000/- A false case under FIR No.209 dated 21.05.1993 was also registered against the petitioner. On 05.06.1993, respondent No.3 came to the shop of the complainant in the jeep driven by respondent No2. and took him in the jeep.

Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 also joined. The complainant was wrongfully confined in a room and was made to sign certain papers. A false case was also filed against him.

Case of the accused persons was that on account of sale proceedings between the parties, the case of the complainant was false.

The complainant, apart from examining himself, also examined Atul Kumar, PW-2, Sushma, PW-3, HC Bhagwan Dass, PW-4, Khushi Ram, SSO, PW-5 and Ahlmad in the Court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, PW-6.

The learned trial Magistrate recorded the following findings:- i) It was proved that complainant Anand Parkash was lifted from his shop in 05.06.1993 and was kept in illegal confinement, for which, charge under Section 342 IPC was proved.

ii) Charges of unlawful confinement, abduction, trespass and intimidation were proved. Respondent No.3 was also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act. There was no evidence that respondent No.5 had participated in any conspiracy for the same.

Pag

e

num

bers

Criminal Misc. No.668-MA of 2006

iii) Offence of forgery showing withdrawal of the amount from the account as alleged was proved and accordingly, offences under Sections 348/467/468/471/120-B IPC were made out.

We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

The learned trial Magistrate has clearly held that respondent No.5 was not shown to be a party to the conspiracy and forgery by the respondents was not proved. Acquittal of the respondents from the charges under Sections 348/467/468/471/120-B IPC and acquittal of respondent No.5 of all the charges is, thus, based on valid reasons.

The parameters for interfering with the order of acquittal are well- known and reference be also made to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:-

"21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : AIR 1973 SC 2622: 1973 Cri 1783)). The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225: 1996 AIR SCW 2438: AIR 1996 SC 2035 (1996 Cri LJ 2867):

"While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions." Pag

e

num

bers

Criminal Misc. No.668-MA of 2006

In view of above, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal.

The application is dismissed.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

JUDGE

January 15, 2007 ( H.S. BHALLA )

ashwani JUDGE

Pag

e

num

bers


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.