MEERA Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2011 passed by the Special Magistrate, Kapurthala vide which the complaint filed by Mehnga Ram (since deceased) has been dismissed and the accused has been acquitted of the offence charged against him.

(2.) APART from the fact that the appeal is barred by limitation as it has been filed 1001 days after expiry of limitation, I do not find any reason to intervene.

(3.) DURING the course of trial, the complainant filed his affidavit Ex. PA by way of examination -in -chief and he was partly cross -examined by counsel representing the opposite party. During pendency of further cross -examination of the complainant, he passed away. On 15.01.2010, Meera (petitioner) wife of Mehnga Ram was allowed to be brought on record as legal heir of deceased complainant and to pursue the proceedings. Meera appeared in the witness box to prove the case. The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence came to hold that financial position of the complainant was not very good and he obtained loan from his relatives while on the contrary, the financial position of the accused was sound and, therefore, the question of taking loan by the accused from one of his employees does not arise. As the petitioner failed to discharge the onus to establish on record that the deceased advanced a loan of Rs. 2,70,000/ - or was in a financial position to advance such a loan, the trial Court rightly held that the complainant has failed to prove culpability of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. I do not find any error much less illegality in the findings as would call for interference in the judgment of acquittal.