9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed having secured acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal cannot be interfered with - there are no fault with the judgment of the Trial Court - appeal dismissed. - K. R. SHRIRAM , J. Mr. H. V. Venegaonkar for Appellant in Appeal No.480 of 2004 and for Respondent no.2 in Revision Application No.128 of 2004 Mr. S. V. Marwadi for Applicant in Revision Application No.128 of 2004 Dr. Sujay Kantawalla i/b Parinam Law Associates for Respondent No.1 in both the matters Mrs. Anamika Malhotra APP for State JUDGMENT 1 On 21-12-2020, Mr. H. V. Venegaonkar is shown to have appeared for respondent no.1-original applicant when the Interim Application taken out by respondent was heard. The court sherestedar informs me that Mr. Venegaonkar had not appeared that day but his junior had appeared but gave appearance of Mr. Venegaonkar. 2 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 27-1-2004 passed by L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyee. P.W.-9 is the one who lodged the FIR and filed the charge sheet. P.W.-10 and P.W.-11 are the Investigating officers. 8 As regards DCR (Daily Collection Report) Nos.1 and 26, the same has been explained by accused. So far as the remaining three DCRs, i.e., 80, 85, and 93, P.W.-4 confirmed having received post dated cheques from Jay Murlidhar Petroleum and having filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Jay Murlidhar Petroleum. Even P.W.-7 has admitted that Jay Murlidhar Petroleum had subsequently given cheques to IOCL, which were dishonoured and IOCL has filed criminal case against Jay Murlidhar Petroleum. P.W.-7 is the Senior Manager of IOCL. P.W.-7 also admits that he has not disclosed to the police that cheques were received and complaints under Section 138 have been filed against Jay Murlidhar Petroleum. What has really been, as proverbially stated, the last straw on the camel s back, is the fact that prosecution had produced only copies of the DCRs without proving the same as required under the Indian Evidence Act. These are the DCR s relying on which allegations are made against accused. In fact police has not even attached the comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Computer Engineer has stated that the information in the computer is saved in the hard disk and that hard disk from computer was the primary source of material. P.W.-3 says that printouts were taken out from one floppy by using another computer and not from the main computer on which all the date was recorded. It will not be out of place to say that in such a case there were ample possibilities of the printouts of the DCRs being tampered with. P.W.-4 says in his testimony that he did not verify whether accused has sold barrels and received payment. P.W.-4 has not produced the cash receipt for DCR Nos. 80, 85 and 93 before the police. P.W.-4 says he does not remember whether requisition was made by DOLD operator in writing and he did not examine the entire file of 5 DCRs. P.W.-4 s answers I find, were rather evasive. 11 In the circumstances, having considered the entire evidence, there is not even an iota of evidence to show that accused converted the property entrusted to him by IOCL for his own use and committed criminal breach of trust and the charge of offence under Section 408 of IPC fails. For the reason of non admissibility of DCRs on record, it cannot be said that accuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. 13 The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka (2014) 5 SCC 730 has held that unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, Appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of respondents an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
