Himachal Pradesh High Court
CR.A/258/2002 of RAM SINGH Vs PRITHVI RAJ on 30 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 258 of 2002. Date of decision: 30.12.2008 Ram Singh …. Appellant/Complainant. Vs. Prithvi Raj Sharma ... Respondent/Accused. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)
This appeal by the complainant is directed against the judgement dated 18.9.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1[st] Class, Mandi, whereby he has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 405, 406 and 420 IPC.
The complainant filed the present complaint against the accused alleging therein that he used to supply medicinal herbs to various parties in Amritsar. According to complainant, on 30.4.1987 he supplied 173 Guthies of Banaksha weighing 6.82 quintals to the respondent. This Banaksha was entrusted with the respondent and he was requested to sell the same. However, the accused after selling the Banaksha misappropriated the sale proceeds without informing the complainant. On these allegations, it was alleged that the accused has committed offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
The learned trial Court acquitted the accused holding that even the entrustment of Banaksha has not been proved. To prove the entrustment, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment .yes.
the complainant has relied upon the document Ext.CA. This document purported to be a receipt issued by one Shri Mani Dogra, who has signed the same as Manager of M/s Ram Dass and Sons. No evidence has been led on the record to show that what is relationship the accused Prithvi Raj with M/s Ram Dass and Sons. What is the legal entity of M/s Ram Dass and Sons has not been proved on record. The complainant has also failed to show what is the relationship of Mani Dogra with this concern. The entrustment of Banaksha with the accused has not been proved. Even if this document is taken to be the gospel truth, the goods were entrusted to Mani Dogra of M/s Ram Dass and not with the accused.
The complainant has also not taken a consistent stand. On the one hand, he has alleged on the basis of the receipt referred to above that the Banaksha was entrusted to Shri Mani Dogro and on the other hand the stand of the complainant is that he had initially sent the Banaksha to M/s Kalyan Singh Mohan Singh. According to the complainant later he had directed M/s Kalyan Singh Mohan Singh to handover the Banaksha to the accused. There is no material on record to show that M/s Kalyan Singh Mohan Singh had ever entrusted the Banaksha to the accused.
Even the misappropriation or cheating has not been proved in the case. There is no evidence on record to show at what rate the Banaksha was sold, what was the amount collected by the accused and whether the amount was illegally retained by him or not.
The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.
December 30, 2008 ™
( Deepak Gupta ), J.