GOPALGANJ CENTRAL CO Vs. DINESH TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 6/7/1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Gopalganj, in G.R. Case No. 703/75 Trial No. 404/99.

(2.) The Gopalganj Central Cooperative Bank is the revisionist before this Court. Opposite party No. 1 of this revision, Dinesh Tripathi was the accused before the trial Court upon the allegation that during the relevant period, he was an Assistant in the Sasamusa branch of Central Co-operative Bank. Gopalganj. The Manager of the aforesaid bank was Ambika Rai. The accused Dinesh Tripathi had received 10 volume of cheque books on 30/12/1974. He handed over one volume of cheque book to Birendra Narain Singh, the Manager of Sasamusa Co-operate Development and Sugarcane Sale and Purchase Association. However, during 1/2/1975 to 26/3/1975 Dinesh Tripathi withdraw a total amount of Rs. 51.035 on the cheque Nos. 3212. 3314,3318 and 3320 and misappropriated the same, but withdrawal was shown in the name of Birendra Narain Singh and Rajendra Prasad, who actually had not withdrawn the aforesaid amount. Upon the aforesaid allegation case was instituted and thereafter the accused Dinesh Tripathi had faced trial but was acquitted by the trial Court. Normally, against the judgment of acquittal appeal is maintainable by no appeal was filed either by the State or even by the revisionist. The revisionist was entitled to file an appeal after taking permission from this Court. So far revision is concerned, revision would lie only when there is gross error or irregularity in the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court I do not think that the trial court misinterpreted the evidence or committed any error of record. It does not also appear that any vital piece of evidence was ignored by the trial Court to change the decision, against Dinesh Tripathi, instead of in his favour. It has been submitted by the opposite partys lawyer that the forged cheques were not produced or brought on the record in order to show that forgery was committed regarding the persons who withdrew the amount on the aforesaid cheques. So. I am of the opinion that this revision is not maintainable. Moreover, even in a case of acquittal appeal would lie only when there is perversion in the judgment or the judgment appears to be unreasonable in view of the evidence on the record.

(3.) In the result, I do not think that there is good reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.