JAGDISH RAJ Vs. DIWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of acquittal dated 06.03.2012 passed by the Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Samba, in criminal challan titled State v. Diwan Chand and others. The order of acquittal has been challenged in this revision petition precisely on the ground that the impugned judgment is against law and facts, highly prejudicial to the interests of equity and justice and the Trial Court has mis-appreciated the evidence, misconstrued the law and has overlooked the legally admissible evidence. It is submitted that by ordering acquittal of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9, the Trial Court has committed grave error of law, which is perverse and, therefore, indulgence of this Court is required to prevent gross mis-carriage of justice. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the offences were proved against the accused by oral as well as documentary evidence.

(2.) After filing of the revision, notices were sent to the respondents. The petitioner is not appearing in this case since 8th June, 2020 nor has anybody appeared when the case was taken up today. Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate caused appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 9, whereas Mr. Aseem Sawhney, No. 10. Since nobody has appeared for the petitioner, therefore, this revision is considered after hearing learned counsel for the respondents only.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court and that the Trial Court has passed the order impugned after appreciating the entire evidence before it. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the revision against an order of acquittal has a limited scope and High Court can interfere only when the order under challenge is perverse or has caused any illegality.