LALA SATNARAYAN PRASAD Vs. SHIV NANDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents were prosecuted for the charges under Sections 144 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code on accusation that after Lala Satya Narain Prasad (P.W. 4) purchased trees in the orchard of Sitaram Singh of value of Rs. 7,100 and paid an advance of Rs. 6,000 for the trees which were being cut, and had been away from the station to arrange truck from Purnea for carriage of fogs, the respondents resisted removal of logs from his custody and after P.W. 3 made protest, he was forced to get out from the orchard. After a police case had been registered on these accusations on behest of Lala Satya Narain Prasad, it appears that on usual investigation, the police submitted final report for insufficiency of evidence, pursuant to which, a petition of protest was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate; Purnea when trial commenced against the respondents. THE prosecution examined four witnesses including Lala Satya Narain Prasad, and the defence too examined one witness, and placed on the record, money receipts (Exts. A & A/1) to show sale of logs of Sitaram Singh to another timber owner. THE complainant and other witnesses had been stating about removal of logs by the respondents, notwithstanding purchase of trees of the orchard by Sri Lala Satya Narain Prasad for consideration of Rs. 7,100. THE trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the parties while negativing contentions raised on behait of the appellant, acquitted' the respondents of the charges. THE aggrieved complainant on grant of leave by the Court, filed appeal to assail the validity of the finding recorded by the Court below. Notices were also issued to the respondents. Though name of Counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents were appearing in the cause list, no one appeared on repeated calls, and, hence, the record was perused and finding of the Court below is being critically examined. THE trial Court, while negativing contentions raised on behalf of the complainant-appellant, took into consideration that even though the complainant claimed to have made payment of Rs. 6,000 to Sitaram Singh out of consideration money of Rs. 7,100, no money receipt was ever placed on the record in token of receipt of money by the latter. Though Raghunath Prasad (P.W. 1) stated to be a witness to the transaction about payment of advance of Rs. 6,000 to Sitaram Singh, he was not a witness to the negotiations between the parties. Though the transaction was shown to have been finalised between the parties in pursuance of. talk, there did not appear to be any execution of deed of agreement between them, Though large number of witnesses were shown to have flocked to the place of occurrence, but none of them who could have been independent and also competent of witnesses, was examined at trial. Even P.W. 3 who was guarding the logs shortly on its removal by the respondents, had not chosen to take recourse to public authority, and that apart, though the complainant was alleging that he had maintained the account of payment, made to the labourers for cutting the logs, no such account was ever placed on the record. This fact too cannot be lost right of that though it was alleged by the witnesses that the police too visited the place of occurrence and seized logs, neither any police officer was examined nor any seizure memo was ever placed on the record and on consideration of totality of circumstances, I find that the prosecution evidence was not tree from blemishes and the conclusion drawn by the trial Court cannot be said to be unwarranted and, as such, finding no merit the appeal is dismissed.