STATE Vs. ABDUL SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 415/83 filed by the State & Cr. Rev. Petition No. 13/83 filed by the complainant, both arise out of judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in or appeal No. 10/82 while reversing the judgment dated 22.1.82 of the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Cr. case No.72/77, & acquitting the respondent of the offence of Sections 419, & 420, IPC.

(2.) The allegation against the respondent (accused) is that he got encashed one draft to the tune of Rs. 4000.00 (hearing No. 293/380' dated 14.4.75 of Chartered Bank Behrain) alleged to have been sent by the complainant (Abdul Sattar)s brother Ramjan through registered letter which is said to have been received by the respondent being namesake as of the complainant (Abdul Sattar), by receiving the postman and also got its payment with the aid of M/s Murlidhar Brijmohan. A complainant of which was lodged on 13.6.76 with the Superintendent of Police, CID C.B. Jaipur. A challan was submitted after due registration of criminal case for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 467, IPC, before the trial Court which, after due trial found the respondent guilty under Sec. 419, 420, Penal Code & sentenced him to undergo one year's S.I & three years RI with a fine of Rs. 5000.00 respectively. An appeal was filed by the respondent against his conviction & sentence and it was allowed vide judgment dated 23.10.82 and the respondent (accused) was acquitted of all the charges.

(3.) One of the grounds assigned by the lower court for acquittal of the respondent is that the F.I.R. was lodged after in-ordinate delay of several months which casts aspersion on the prosecution case and the genesis of its story has become open to suspicion, inasmuch as most material witness Yusuf Yasin has not Present been examined and he could have thrown light as he is said to have sent the envelop (Ex. D 1) containing the draft in question. Further the prosecution has failed to submit the acknowledgement receipt of the amount which might have been deposited at the time of sending the amount through draft from Behrain. From the material on record, the defence of the respondent (accused) that he had earlier advanced a loan to the tune of Rs. 4000.00 to Yusuf Yasin while he had left for Behrain, is probabilised and his plea is not devoid of any force.