9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondents. - S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 691/2007 - - - Dated:- 11-9-2008 - MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Shyam Kant Sharma for Union of India. O.P. Mishra and D.K. Kala for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant - Union of India, through Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Finance Company Affairs, against the Judgment of acquittal dated 19-8-2002 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur City, (hereinafter to be referred in short the learned trial Court ) Jaipur in case No. 140/2002, whereby it acquitted the accused respondents for the offenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as an offence continuous in nature. 3. On the basis of this complaint the learned trial Court took cognizance against the accused respondents for the offence under section 159/162 of the Companies Act, 1956. Thereafter, the substance of the offence was read over to them. They denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 4. From the side of complainant statement of PW1 Shiv Prakash Rawat was recorded. 5. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 19-8-2002 acquitted the accused-respondents from the aforesaid offence. 7. Aggrieved with the impugned judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 19-8-2002 passed by learned trial Court. 10. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court: Umrao v. State of Haryana AIR 2006 SC 2152 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "...It is now well-settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." (p. 2157) 11. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
