STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SAHIJRAM HIRANAND SINDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by State is directed against the order of acquittal, dated 23rd April, 1973. passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhulia in Summary Case No. 2873 of 1973.

(2.) The accused was prosecuted for the offence under section 265 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that on 10th August. 1973 he fraudulently used a false weight of one kilo as a different weight from what it was and thereby committed an offence, punishable under section 265 of the Indian Penal Code, Considering the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the acccsed and in my view, he said acquittal is pre-eminently justified. There are several infirmities in the prosecution case. The prosecution witness Mukhi, who is the chief of the Sindhi Community, has. in his evidence, supported not the prosecution story but that of the accused, He admits in his evidence that the con-plainant Shivandas never complained to him against the accused at any time. He also admits that there was absolutely no double set of weights in the shop of the accused. He also admits that the weights found in the shop included weight of One Kilo. Shivandas himself states in his evidence that immediately after purchasing oil from the shop of the accused, he pi ked up One Kilo's weight and instead of going to the Police Station or going to the Inspector, weights and Measures, whose office was located very nearby, he went to the house of one Dr. Chaudharl along with the aforesaid weight. He had no satisfactory explanation to give at all as to why he did not immediately complain either to the Police or to the Inspector of Weights and Measures. There is also on record receipts passed to the prosecution witnesses on the very day of the incident. which receipts falsely the evidence of these prosecution witnesses, as regards their position in the queue at the relevant time. It is pertinent to note that, though a large number of persons were standing at the shop as purchasers and in the queue, inquestion on the prosecution has not led evidence of any single person from out of the several customers. The fact that the main prosecution witness Shivandas is also a shop keeper cannot be ignored and the consquent jealousy between him and the accused cannot be ruled out. All in all, the learned trial Magistrate has very rightly concluded that it would be unsafe to base any conviction on such evidence He has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused and has rightly acquitted him. In all the circumstances aforesaid. I see no reason at all to interfere with the said order of acquittal.

(3.) This appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds cancelled.