BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Registry has pointed out a defect that petition is delayed by fourteen days, and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is without any affidavit. But, even on merit, the case stands on a weak wicket.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 09.01.2007, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.2, Babu Lal, for offences under Sections 323 and 379 IPC.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate has also noticed the fact that none of the witnesses claim that Babu Lal had taken away the wrist watch. All of them claim that they heard that Babu Lal had done so. Since it was a hear-say evidence, obviously the same could not be believed. Moreover, even the recovery of the said watch is under cloud. Hence, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in acquitting the petitioner of both the offences.