KRISHANMOHAN ANANDA SAINDANE Vs. ANILKUMAR BHERUMAL MAWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned order dated 12-3-1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule in S. T. C. C. No. 2137/1994 acquitting the respondent No. 1 of the offence punishable under section 385 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "ipc").

(2.) Relevant facts stated briefly are that petitioner runs a Hospital, by name and style, Suyog Hospital, Sakri Road, Dhule. His wife is a Gynecologist. In the month of October, 1993 an extortionist threatened the complainant to blow his hospital by using a bomb, if amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is not paid. Threats were given on telephone and by sending letters also. After detection of the chit attached to the packet, which is supposed to have contained a bomb, complainant got suspicious and opened the tin. To his utter surprise, he found that there was no bomb inside. Thereafter, complainant gave an intimation about the threats and the letters to the police. On the basis of this report dated 4-2-1994 (Exh. 14) offence came to be registered under section 385, Indian Penal Code. After complaint was lodged letter (Exh. 18) was received by the complainant. Accused had come to his cabin at the Hospital and asked him about receipt of threats on phone. As this fact was not disclosed to anybody, complainant suspected respondent No. 1 as the mischief-monger. He, therefore, obtained specimen writing of respondent No. l, with the help of his brother. He tallied the writing. On coming to the conclusion that offending letters are written by respondent no. 1, complainant gave an intimation to the Police and handed over the letters to them. Exhs. 11, 13 and 14 were attached and were sent for opinion of handwriting Expert, with specimen writing of respondent No. 1, Shri Jaisingrao landge, Handwriting Expert (PW 3) found that letters are written by respondent no. 1 and has given expert's opinion dated 17-10-1996 (Exh. 42). He has also produced enlarged photo prints and the reasons for the opinion (Exh. 43).

(3.) On the basis of this material respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted. Particulars of the offence were explained to the respondent No. 1 as the case was tried as Summary case, At the conclusion of the trial, learned trial judge found that except opinion of the Handwriting Expert, there is no evidence on record to establish involvement of respondent No. 1 in commission of an offence. He therefore, acquitted the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 12th March, 1998. This order has been impugned in the present petition.