Khusiram Sharma vs Pradip Chandra Deo

S. K. SAHOO, J. Â

The appellant Khusiram Sharma was the complainant in I.C.C. Case No.64 of 1984 and the respondent Pradip Chandra Deo was the accused in

the said case. The respondent faced trial in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack in I.C.C. Case No.64 of 1984 for offence punishable under section

420 of the Indian Penal Code and he was acquitted of the charge vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.09.1991.

It is the case of the complainant that he was the proprietor of Nilachala Diary having its office at Bakharabad and he came in contact with the

accused when the accused came to Cuttack and contacted him to purchase Jersy cows. The friendship developed between the two and in the year

1981, the accused approached the complainant during summer days to spare some amount for purchase of best Jersy cows. It is the further case of

the complainant that due to the inducement of the accused that he would purchase cows from Cuttack and sale it at higher rate at Rourkela and return

money to the complainant, the complainant paid Rs.23,500/- to the accused. After some days, when the complainant approached the accused to pay

back the money, the accused issued a cheque of Rs.7,000/- on 14.10.1981 to the complainant putting the date as 19.10.1981 which was presented by

the complainant in his account at United Bank of India but since insufficient money was available in the account of the accused, it was referred to the

drawer. After dishonour of the cheque, the complainant met the accused and told him about the dishonour of the cheque but the accused made

evasive statements for which the complainant wrote letters to the accused and sent telegrams. Since the accused did not pay the amount taken from

the complainant, the complaint petition was filed. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined. The learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and after appearance of the accused in the case, charge was framed under

section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

During course of trial, the complainant examined three witnesses including himself as P.W.1. P.W.2 Raghunath Panda stated about the loan taken

by the accused from the complainant and P.W.3 Kabi Prasad Mishra was the Assistant Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank who proved Ext.2, the

statement of the account of the accused and he stated that the accused had only Rs.96/- in his account from 19.10.1981 to 03.11.1981. The cheque in

question was exhibited as Ext.1 on behalf of the complainant. Â No witness was examined on behalf of the defence.

The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence on record has been pleased to hold that none of the witnesses alleged that the accused

dishonestly induced the complainant for paying him Rs.23,500/- and knowing it pretty well that the cheque issued by him would be dishonoured, issued

such a cheque and as such the requisite ingredients of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is silent. It was further held by the

learned trial Court that the complainant did not choose to advance such a huge amount without even any scrap of paper and although the complainant

deposed that he sent telegram and letters, he has not proved any such letter or telegram. The learned trial Court also found that the version of the

accused that he gave the cheque by way of advance for purchase of cows and subsequently changed his mind appeared to be reasonable and

probable and accordingly, the learned trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused. Â None appears on behalf of the appellant or the respondent.

 The learned counsel for the State placed the impugned judgment and the evidence of witnesses.

 5. After going through the impugned judgment and the evidence adduced by the complainant, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or infirmity

in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court assessed the evidence on record minutely and came to a finding that the ingredients of the offence

under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. It is the settled principle of law that in case of appeal against the order of acquittal, if

two views are reasonably possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. The appellate Court

should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the materials on the record because the trial Judge has the

advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused in not weakened by his acquittal. The

appellate Court, therefore, should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court and if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence

on the record, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it. (Ref:-

Babu -Vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 308). Â In view of the foregoing discussions, I am not inclined to interfere

with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.