YALLAPPA Vs. GOURAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of acquittal dated 06.03.2010 passed by the learned Civi l Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Banahatti, in Criminal Case No.28 of 2003.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that it is the case of the appellant that he had f i led a private complaint before the trial Court when the concerned jurisdictional police fai led to take the complaint against the respondents for the offence punishable under sections 379, 447, 506(2) and 109 of IPC in P.C. No.40/2001. It is the case of the prosecution that the appel lant was carrying the business of manufacturing of agricultural products in the name and style of "Mahalaxmi Industrial Steel Works" Banahatti. The business carried by the appel lant was in the property of one Yamanappa, s/o Hanamanth Madar, who had executed registered lease deed in favour of the appel lant on 13/.10.1980 during his l ife time for the period of 20 years in the of fice of the Sub- Registrar, Jamkhandi. The said Yal lappa died on 23.02.1982 and thereafter the mutation was effected in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the said property as legal representatives of decease Yal lapa Madar. However, accused Nos.1 to 6 made galata at the instigation of accused Nos.7 to 9. In order to evict the appel lant from the property, the accused committed theft of 3 H.P. Yielding machine, 1 H.P. Dri l l machine and 1 H.P. Grander which were inthe premises of the appel lant valued at Rs.50,000/-. Further, it is contended that the materials were in the custody of accused No.6 i.e., respondent No.4. The said incident occurred in the month of March 2001 in the presence of PW-2 and one Govind, S/o Hanamanth Siddappagol, who are the eyewitnesses to the incident. The complainant fi led a complaint before the jurisdictional police who did not accept the same. Therefore, he fi led a private complaint before the Superintendent of Pol ice, Bagalkot. Thereafter, he also f i led a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The said complaint was referred to the Banahatti Pol ice Station. After investigation, the police f i led 'B' report. The complaintant chal lenged the same by fi l ing a protest petition and the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 447, 506(2) and 109 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) After service of summons, accused appeared and were enlarged on bai l. The complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. The matter was taken up in Criminal Revision Petition No.54 of 2008 before the Fast Track Court, Jamkhandi. The said revision petition was al lowed. The order of dismissal of the complaint was set aside. The matter was sent back to the trial Court for adjudication. Thereafter, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and also examined another witness as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6.