CHANDRAKANT UIKE Vs. RAJESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant complainant has filed this petition u/S. 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 9-12-2002 passed by Sessions Judge Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 128/02 acquitting respondent No. 2 by reversing the judgment dated 18-9-2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 1260/02 convicting respondents u/S. 420 and 406 of the IPC and each of them was sentenced for 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 5.000/- in earlier section while two years RI in latter.

(2.) The case was arising out of a private complaint initiated by the applicant against respondent. As per averments of the complaint, the respondent No. 1 by executing two different receipts dated 10-6-92 and 3- 7-92 took Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rs. one lakh and fourty thousand only) from the applicant for buying a diesel jeep for him. Subsequent to it as per terms and assurance he neither purchased the jeep nor returned the sum to appellant even on demand, then a notice in this regard was given to respondent No. 1, the same was not complied with. A report was also given to Police on 1-8-1995 but of no avail. Then the complaint was filed. On recording the preliminary evidence u/Ss. 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. the cognizance for the offence u/Ss. 420 and 406 of the IPC was taken against respondent No. 1. After his appearance the charge was framed, evidence was recorded, on appreciation of it he was held guilty and sentenced by the trial Court as said above. The same was assailed by respondent No. 1 in the subordinate appellate Court. On consideration, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside by acquitting the respondent No. 1 from the alleged charges. Hence applicant has preferred this petition for special leave to appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid amount was given to respondent No. 1 under the assurance and trust for purchasing the jeep and the alleged sum was taken by respondent with aforesaid understanding. Applicant was remained under impression that the respondent will fulfil the terms of contract for which the aforesaid money was entrusted with him. But subsequently it was neither used or spent for the purpose agreed in between them nor returned to applicant. Thereby respondent No. 1 has committed the offence of breach of trust as well as cheating also. By referring depositions of some witnesses he submitted that the alleged offence was proved against the respondent No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt and he was rightly held guilty by trial Court. There was no circumstance before the subordinate Appellate Court even on reappreciation of the evidence, for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court or acquittal of respondent No. 1 and prayed for leave to appeal.