High CourtsDivision Bench

State of U.P. vs Sarveshwar Sahai Saxena

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 25 November 2003 · Citation: (2004) 1 ACR 127

HON’BLE JUDGES
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J · M.C. Jain, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 409
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Government Appeal No. 768 of 1982
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 340 words

Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.—Sole accused Respondent was charged and tried u/s 409, I.P.C. but was acquitted. The judgment with order of acquittal was passed in Criminal Case No. 1610 of 1981 by the then Ist Additional Munsif Magistrate, Budaun, on 18.12.1981. The State of Uttar Pradesh has come up in appeal against that order.

2.

Sri M.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Sri J. S. Audichya, learned Counsel appearing for the accused Respondent have been heard and record of the case has been perused.

3.

According to prosecution case, the Respondent was posted as Seed Godown Incharge in Agriculture Department at Budaun. He worked as such from the year 1965 to 1968. During the aforesaid period, he was entrusted with fertilizers, seeds and gunny bags regarding which he committed criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs. 1,07,743.58 p. F.I.R. against the accused was lodged on 31.7.1970 by Mahendra Singh, District Agriculture Officer, Budaun. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Respondent. The trial court found that from 21.1.1975, on which date charge was framed against the accused Respondent, till 18.12.1981, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence in the case. The trial court also found that two witnesses whose statements were recorded prior to the committal of the case, had not been produced by the prosecution for cross-examination. The trial court was of the view that inspite of more than sufficient opportunity being given to the prosecution and the prosecution having failed to adduce any evidence, it was a case of no evidence against the accused. Defence of the Respondent was that due to departmental disputes he had been falsely implicated in the case. Since it was a case of no evidence against the accused Respondent, the trial court has rightly passed the order of acquittal. No interference is required in the said order. The appeal has, therefore, got no force. It is liable and is accordingly dismissed. If the Appellant is in jail he shall be released, if not wanted in any other case.