ISHVERLAL VASHRAMBHAI MAHERIA Vs. RAJESH NATVARLAL VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), challenging the judgment and order dated 25.8.2000 recorded by the learned Special Judge, Court No.17 of Ahmedabad City Sessions Court in Atrocity Special Case No.10/2000 under which the learned Judge acquitted the first respondent from offence punishable under section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the said Act') as well as from the offence punishable under sections 294(Kh) and 506(1) of Indian Penal Code. It appears to be the case of the present petitioner before the trial court as the original informant and complainant, that the present petitioner and contesting respondent no.1 who was accused in the aforesaid Atrocity Special Case No.10/2000, were partners in a firm. The petitioner also alleged that the account was not settled and, therefore, there was some negotiation for settlement of account. Even notice was also issued but the account was not settled. Therefore, the petitioner contacted the first respondent for the settlement of accounts in presence of some friends. The petitioner then, alleged that during the course of the aforesaid conversation, the first respondent got angry and started abusing the present petitioner. That he also threatened the present petitioner and ultimately FIR was filed by the petitioner which was registered before the Vatva Police Station in Ahmedabad City being C.R. No.3160/99.

(2.) The investigating police officer undertook investigation and at the conclusion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no.19 on 6.8.1999. The learned Magistrate enlarged respondent no.1 on bail but since he did not have jurisdiction to try the said case, he committed the said case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Code on 9.2.2000. It was accordingly registered as Atrocity Special Case No.10/2000 before the said Court. On 29.3.2000, charge was framed at Exh.3 for the said offence against the first respondent. The first respondent pleaded not guilty to the said charge and, therefore, the learned Special Judge proceeded to examine the witness. The prosecution submitted four witnesses before the trial court. On conclusion of the oral evidence, the learned Special Judge recorded further statement of the contesting respondent under section 313 of the Code. The arguments were heard and thereafter, the learned Special Judge pronounced the aforesaid judgment on 25.8.2000 holding that the offence against the contesting respondent has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he directed that the contesting respondent be acquitted from the aforesaid offence.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and acquittal order of the learned Special Judge, the petitioner has preferred this Revision before this Court as the original informant and complainant in the said matter. At the hearing learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued the matter at length. He has contended that the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and committed serious illegality in extending benefit of doubt to the contesting respondent. On the other hand, learned APP, Mr K G Sheth has submitted that there was no illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the contesting respondent. He also submitted that this court exercising revisional power has very limited scope for exercising jurisdiction and, therefore, it would not be possible even on technicalities to allow the present revision. In fact, learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken me through the entire judgment recorded by the learned Special Judge. Time and again, he submitted that the learned Judge has committed serious error at so many places. It is also contended that the offence has taken place in such a small place. There was no possibility of any independent witness. He also submitted that it was a non-working day and, therefore, no witness could be expected. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed serious illegality in acquitting the contesting respondent for want of corroboration of independent witness to the evidence of the petitioner. He also submitted that notice issued by the petitioner to the contesting respondent has been wrongly dealt with by the learned Special Judge. That there was mention about the applicability of section 19 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the section was wrongly quoted in the notice. That the learned Special Judge ought to have ignored the said error committed in issuing the said notice and referring section 19 therein. That therefore, the Court should allow this Revision Application and set aside the judgment and acquittal order of the trial court. He also submitted that other appropriate orders may also be passed as per the requirement in the matter.