ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this revisional application is to the judgment and order dated 02.03.2009 passed by Sri Anupam Sarkar, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia thereby acquitting the opposite party No. 2 Bhola Nath Roy Chowdhury @ Bholanath Chowdhury from the charge under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code in G. R. Case No. 64 of 1997.

(2.) DILIP Kumar Das, the then Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kalyani Branch lodged one written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of the Kalyani Police Station against the opposite party No. 2, Sri Bhola Nath Roychowdhury alleging therein that on 29.04.1997 after opening the cash box of the office, he found that a cash amount of Rs.10,260/- was missing from the box. The opposite party No. 2 was absent on that date without prior notice. The Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kalyani Branch lodged another complaint with Kalyani P. S. alleging therein that a further sum of Rs. 4,11,879/- was also misappropriated by Bhola Nath Roy Chowdhury which he detected from the Books of Accounts and records.

(3.) THE jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising its revisional power is limited and restricted specially in case of acquittal. It is only in glaring cases of injustice, resulting from some violation of the fundamental principles of law by the trial Court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct retrial of the acquitted accused. THE power should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. THE mere circumstance is that a findings of fact recorded by the trial Court, may, in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, is not justified for setting aside the acquittal and direct retrial. This view was taken in Bansi Lal v. Laxman Singh, 1986 SCC (Cr) 342 : 1986 C Cr LR. (SC) 132. THE Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A. P., (1963)1 Cr LJ 8 in paragraph 7 observed :