MOHAMMAD SHAREEF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-complainant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.2001, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 16.07.2001, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, wherein the learned Magistrate had convicted the accused-respondent, Sevak Ram, for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that on 03.10.1998, the petitioner-complainant, Mohammad Shareef, lodged a report at Police Station Nasirabad wherein he stated that the accused-respondent, Sevak Ram agreed to sell his house No.2325 situated at Badi Mandi, Nasirabad for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. Out of the consideration amount, the complainant had already paid Rs.10,000/- to Sevak Ram; it was agreed that the remaining of Rs.5,000/- would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. He further stated that after coming to know that Sevak Ram promised to sell the same house to one Mohammad Ismail, his intention to cheat the complaint was clear. Thus, the complainant sent a notice on 05.09.1998 to Sevak Ram. But even then, the registry was not executed by him. The police registered a case for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet for the above mentioned offences. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses and submitted three documents. In defence, the accused-respondent examined one Abdul Saleem as his witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 16.07.2001, the learned trial court convicted the accused-respondent for the above mentioned offences, but also gave him the benefit of probation. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused-respondent filed an appeal before the appellate court. However, vide judgment dated 30.10.2001, the appellate court while setting aside the order dated 16.07.2001, acquitted the accused-respondent for the above mentioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) THE learned Judge has also noticed the fact that according to legal notice served by the petitioner upon the accused-respondent, the petitioner had himself given out that he will pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- to the accused-respondent to ensure that the registry of the house is done in his favour. However, there is no evidence to show that the said amount was ever offered by the petitioner to the accused-respondent.