KARIM Vs. NASEBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Karim complainant by special leave granted Under Section 417(3), Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Phalodi, dated 12th September, 1970, by which Mst. Nasebo, Mubarak, Hefiz, Ismail and Ishaq were acquitted of the offences punishable Under Sections 447 and, 379 I.P.C.

(2.) THE complainsnt's case against all the five respondents was that on 4th November, 1966, they forcibly entered upon his land comprised of Khasra No. 561 measuring 15 Bighas, situated at some distance from Phalodi, and dishonestly took away his crops of Bajra, Moth, Til Gawar etc. of the value of Rs. 400/. According to the complainant, this pieces of land was allotted to him by an order of the Tehsildar, Phalodi, and that its actual possession was given to him by the Patwari of that circle in pursuance of the order of allotment. The complainant alleged to have made a report of thin incident to the police station, Phalodi, but his contention was that the police did not take any action upon his complaint and so he had no other course open than to file a complaint against the respondents in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Phalodi.

(3.) I have gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainant -appellant and the respondents. Upon careful review of the entire evidence on the record, I have no hesitation in holding that the trial court rightly acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable Under Sections 447 and 379, I.P.C. The trial court has recorded cogent reasons for acquittal of the respondents, with which I fully agree. The offences were alleged to have been committed by the respondent on 4th November, 1966. The complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate on 3rd January, 1967. The explanation given by the complainant for delay in making the complaint is not at all convincing. According to the complainant, he had approached the police soon -after the occurrence and had made all report of the incident at the police station, Phalodi, and that on the basis of his report the police inspected the site but later on did not take any action in the matter. Curiously enough, the complainant could not produce a copy of the first information report, nor did he summon the investigating officer to give evidence in the case and to produce the relevant police record. Had there been any report lodged with the police, the complainant would have surely taken steps to get it produced in the court The trial court, therefore, rightly held that the complainant could not afford reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay in making the complaint against the respondents. The delay in launching the prosecution in this case casts reasonable doubt on the veracity of the complainant's version about the occurrence.