MANOHAR SINGH SACHDEV Vs. NAVJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT criminal revision petition, at the hands of the complainant, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby appeals filed by the State as well as by the complainant -petitioner against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.09.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, were dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused -respondents.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 3 of his impugned judgment, are that Manohar Singh son of Hazoor Singh moved an application before Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Ludhiana, Charanjit Singh on dated 04.08.1997 to the effect that Hazoor Singh, father of the complainant was doing the business as a proprietor since independence in the name and style of Khalsa Bartan Store. He had later on employed Amarjit Singh, father of the accused as Salesman. Amarjit Singh was a clean and devoted worker. By way of his hard work, he earned special place in the heart of Hazoor Singh, who induced him as a partner on 01.04.1967 to the extent of 30% share in the business without investing a single penny. The ownership and tenancy of shop was to remain of Hazoor Singh and no value was put with regard to goodwill. As per the special clause of partnership, the tenancy rights and goodwill was specifically retained by Hazoor Singh i.e. in the event of dissolution. On 12.05.1972 Hazoor Singh took Surinder Kaur his daughter -in -law as his partner in his 70% share. On the death of Hazoor Singh and Surinder Kaur having retired, the complainant being the only legal heir took over the share of Hazoor Singh and Surinder Kaur. New partnership deed was constituted with Amarjit Singh, in which Amarjit Singh had 30% share, whereas the complainant was holding 70% share. The partnership deed was executed on 08.11.1988. It was mentioned in the partnership deed that in the event of dissolution, the goodwill and tenancy rights would remain exclusively with Manohar Singh. Amarjit Singh had died on 30.06.1991. After his death, the complainant continued the business as a proprietor. Even during the life time of Amarjit Singh, Navjeet Singh was employed as a Salesman and was working as such and had been drawing his salary. After the death of Amarjit Singh, accused Navjit Singh and Inderjit Singh started claiming an amount of Rs. 28,626.34 paise being the outstanding amount against the name of Amarjit Singh, on account of partnership deed. The complainant had asked them to seek succession certificate, as Amarjit Singh had other legal heirs. The complainant had been doing the business as proprietor ever since the death of Amarjit Singh and he had been filing the income tax and sales tax returns to the knowledge of Navjit Singh and Inderjit Singh. Navjit Singh and Inderjit Singh became dishonest and with an intention to misappropriate the property and to commit criminal breach of trespass devised a strategy and filed a suit for injunction and rendition of account on 09.04.1996, alleging as to there being partners of 30%. On the basis of ad -interim injunction, they ousted the complainant from his shop and openly started misappropriating the goods belonging to the complainant lying in the shop. They controverted the sale proceeds to their own use. On the application of the complainant, Sh. Ashok Mittal, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner. He visited the spot and prepared the inventory and found that no accounts were being maintained. The accused had also tempered with the documents and destroyed the valuable account books. Account books pertaining to the year 1995 -96 were found at the spot, which were signed by the Local Commissioner. As per the account books, Navjit Singh was shown as an employee drawing salary of Rs. 400/ - per month and the complainant was shown as proprietor. Application filed for appointment of receiver was declined by the learned lower Court and the appeal filed against the same was dismissed. In revision petition before the Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble Court was astonished to see as to how an employee had ousted the owner of the shop and gave option to the accused to get the receiver appointed or to enter into an auction amongst themselves. Navjit Singh and Inderjit Singh gave bid of Rs. 25,000/ - per month, whereas the complainant gave the bid of Rs. 30,000/ - per month. Accused were trapped as they had played trick with the Court and revision petition was rendered infructuous. Navjit Singh being the employee was entrusted with the shop and the utensils worth more than Rs. 3 lacs. He had dishonestly misappropriated the property and had controverted the same for his own use and prayed for registration of the case. On the basis of written application having been filed, after probing into the matter and after seeking the opinion of DA Legal, the case was lodged against the accused.

(3.) IN order to substantiate the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 10 PWs, besides producing on record other relevant documentary evidence. After closing the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material available on record, was put to the accused. They denied the charges levelled against them, alleged false implication and pleaded complete innocence. In their defence evidence, accused produced copy of judgment dated 19.11.2009 as Ex. D1 and closed their evidence.