VIPIN SHANTILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by appellant- Vipin Shantilal Shah, impugning an order and judgment dated 6-6-2002, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, acquitting respondent no.2 of offence punishable under Section 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint) read with Section 109 (Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment) of IPC and Section 395 (Punishment for dacoity) read with Section 109 of IPC.

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that on 2-4-1992, at about 1.15 p.m., 4 persons (original accused nos.2, 3 and 4 and 1 unknown person) entered the office of complainant and forcibly entered his cabin and informed complainant that they have come on behalf of respondent no.2/accused to collect the shares, stocks, debentures of one Mrs. Narialwala. Respondent no.2 who was original accused no.1, was not one among them. Complainant informed them he did not have it. At that time, Shobhraj, Original accused no.4, who was one of the 4 persons, telephoned respondent no.2 from the cabin of complainant and asked what should be done, to which, according to complainant he overheard the instructions to the effect 'Unko Khatam Kar Dalo'. Thereafter, one of them, who had given his name as Rajan, took out a revolver from his pocket and said that he would kill him with the weapon and put the same on the left side temple of complainant. Thereafter, Rajan snatched certain keys from complainant and opened the drawer and started searching in the cabin for share certificates. They did not find any share certificate but found Rs.1,00,000/- in cash in a briefcase and table drawer, which they took away. In view thereof, complainant went to MRA Marg Police Station on 3-4-1992 and he was advised to give the complaint in writing. According to complainant, on the next day, i.e., on 4-4-1992, he went to the police station to give his written complaint and obtain acknowledgment which was not accepted. Thereafter on number of occasions he visited the police station but the police refused to take cognizance of the case and register FIR. Only when complainant approached the DGP, who instructed the concerned ACP, the FIR came to be registered on 24-4-1992 for offences under Section 395 and Section 452 read with Section 120B of IPC, against 4 named persons and against 4 other unnamed persons. The 4 named persons are respondent no.2 Smt. Roshan Delkha, Rajan, Sharekhan and Shobhraj. Rajan, Sharekhan and Shobhraj were never traced by the police and these 3 persons and 4 unnamed persons never stood trial.

(3.) Respondent no.2, was the only accused, who stood trial and denied all allegations and claimed to be tried. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 6-6-2002 acquitted respondent no.2 and also observed that the existence of Rajan, Sharekhan, Shobhraj itself is doubtful and complainant has given fictitious names.