MULTANSINGH VIRUSINGH Vs. JOITARAM SHIVDAS PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision application has been filed by the present petitioner abovenamed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Code"), who was the informant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no. 13 at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1475/90 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, the learned Magistrate acquitted the contesting respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 from the said offences by judgement and acquittal order dated 12.4.1999.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgement and acquittal order recorded by the learned Magistrate, Court no. 13, the present petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Application before this Court. It has been mainly contended in the application that the learned Magistrate has committed serious illegality in appreciation of the evidence before him. That the learned Magistrate has erred in holding that the agreement to sell was in custody of the present petitioner and yet he did not produce the same. That the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in not connecting contesting respondent nos. 1 , 2 and 3 and that on the whole, the judgment and acquittal order recorded by the learned Magistrate are illegal, erroneous and deserve to be set aside. It is therefore, prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgement and acquittal order be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court with a direction for retrial or fresh appreciation of evidence by the trial Court.

(3.) On receiving the revision application, arguments have been heard. Mr. I.M Malek, learned advocate appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S.P. Dave, learned APP appears for the State of Gujarat, respondent no. 4. They have all argued the matter at length in support of their rival contentions. It may be stated that the learned APP has supported the judgment of the trial Court and same way, Mr. Malek, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has also supported the judgment of the trial Court.