UDHORAM DHUNDHWA SAHU Vs. SAHID KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This acquittal appeal is preferred against the order dtd. 7/4/2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 44/2017 whereby the said Court acquitted the respondent of the charge under Sec. 406 of IPC quashing the orders dtd. 8/9/2017 and 21/9/2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the accused/respondent is a businessman and he purchased soyabean from the appellant/complainant in credit and assured the appellant/ complainant that he will pay the amount of purchased soyabean as soon as complainant came to his village Than Khamahriya. The complainant several times went to the accused for receiving the payment but accused paid him only Rs.50,000.00 in the month of March and again reassured the complainant/appellant that the remaining amount of Rs.3,09,681.00 will be given by him but he never paid the said remaining amount. On the basis of said incident, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant/appellant to the police station- Khamahriya, District-Bemetara (C.G.) against the respondent but no any action against the accused/respondent was taken by the police authorities. Thereafter, the appellant filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District- Bemetara (C.G.) and prayed that the respondent may be convicted under Ss. 406, 409 and 420 of IPC. The trial Court having recorded primary evidence of the complainant-Udhoram and his witnesses, took cognizance of offence under Sec. 406 of IPC against the respondent/accused. Thereafter, evidence of the witnesses were recorded before framing of charge and vide order dtd. 21/9/2017, the trial Court framed charge under Sec. 406 of IPC against the respondent/accused. The respondent challenged the orders dtd. 8/9/2017 and 21/9/2017 passed by the learned trial Court by filing revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.) and the said revision was allowed vide order dtd. 7/4/2018 quashing the said orders passed by the learned trial Court and respondent was acquitted of the charge under Sec. 406 of IPC. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned revisional Court quashing the charge framed under Sec. 406 of IPC by the trial Court is illegal. Learned revisional Court failed to appreciate the evidence led by the complainant. Learned trial Court rightly framed the charge under Sec. 406 of IPC but the learned revisional Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence and recorded the finding which is not in accordance with law. The impugned order passed by the revisional Court is bad in law as well as facts. The revisional Court passed the impugned order without application of mind and in a most mechanical manner. Learned revisional Court ought to have seen that in such cases, victims have both kind of remedies i.e. civil and criminal. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.