As per case facts, complainant Bhupinder Singh alleged that the Sarpanch and other respondents embezzled Panchayat funds through substandard material use, forged muster-rolls, and inflated bills for village development works. ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.03.2025.
Bhupinder Singh ....Applicant/Appellant.
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
.......
Present:Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, Advocate
for the applicant/ appellant.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
***
Sukhvinder Kaur , J.
1. Applicant/ complainant Bhupinder Singh has preferred the
instant application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal
against judgment dated 30.11.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Karnal, vide which respondents No.2 to 5 have been acquitted of
offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 467, 468, 471, 201 read
with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The factual scenario, as highlighted by the prosecution, is that
complainant Bhupinder Singh son of Singara Singh, resident of village
Dungra, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal filed a complaint dated 09.07.2014
Ex.P3 before ADGP, CID, Haryana for taking action against accused Ajit
Singh Sarpanch for embezzling funds of the Panchayats by making
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 2
payments of bills for development works, which were carried out with sub-
standard materials and not as per specifications of the government. On the
basis of aforesaid complaint Ex.P3, police registered enquiry
No.74/FSO/CM/2015. During the enquiry, statement of the complainant
Ex.P4 was recorded on 08.09.2014, in which details of such works, in which
either sub-standard material was used or complete material was not used,
were given. These details included execution of work of cleaning the pond
of village Dungra, construction of pucca street from the house of Harsukh to
the main road, filling earth with JCB, for making village pond pucca,
making road of village Phirni pucca, laying down pipeline for drainage of
dirty water from the pond of village Gumto to the main old drain,
construction of RCC road from the house of Satpal to pond. As per the
allegations, in the year 2010 accused Ajit Singh was elected Sarpanch of
Panchayats of villages Dungra and Gumto, Block and Tehsil Indri, District
Karnal for a period of five years. Various development works were executed
in the village falling under said Panchayats, during his tenure from 2010 to
2015. In the said works complete material as per specifications was not used
and rather works were executed with sub-standard material. It was alleged
that accused Ajit Singh Sarpanch, co-accused Prabhjot Singh, supplier of
material along with Dharambir and Baldhir Singh, Gram Sachivs of the
Panchayats hatched criminal conspiracy to embezzle funds/ grants given to
the Panchayats by the Government. In the enquiry conducted by DSP Sham
Lal, it was concluded that all the four accused in conspiracy with one
another embezzled Rs.1,65,595/- of the Panchayat by using sub-standard
and incomplete material in the aforesaid development works, by making
forgery in the muster-rolls, by inflating the bills of material equipments etc.
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 3
3. On the basis of enquiry report, Ex.P-71, FIR No.427 dated
08.10.2015, under sections 120B, 406, 409, 420 IPC, Police Station Indri
(Ex.P1), was registered. During the course of investigation, statements of
witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Various documents and
records of the Panchayats were taken into possession by the investigating
team. Specimen handwriting of the accused was taken for comparison.
Samples of material used were taken from the spot and sent for analysis to
the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal, which
analyzed the samples and gave its report Ex.PW18/A dated 28.03.2018.
Disclosure statements of accused were also recorded.
4. After conclusion of investigation, report prepared under section
173 Cr.P.C. was put before competent authorities for according prosecution
sanction of public servants, namely, Dharambir and Baldhir Singh, Gram
Sachivs. Competent authority i.e. D.C. Karnal vide order dated 29.03.2017
Ex.P83 accorded prosecution sanction to prosecute accused Dharambir
Singh Gram Sachiv and regarding Baldhir Singh Gram Sachiv, it was
opined that as he had retired from service so there was no requirement to
get sanction by said authority.
5. After completion of entire formalities of investigation challan
under sections 120B, 409, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with section 120B IPC
and section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was filed against all the
four accused persons.
6. After finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were
charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B,
409, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with section 120B IPC and section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, to which they did not plead guilty and
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 4
claimed trial.
7. As many as 33 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to
prove its case. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded while putting incriminating evidence against them. They claimed
innocence and false implication. Accused Ajit Singh Sarpanch stated that
this case was politically motivated as he had defeated Smt. Kuldeep Kaur
wife of complainant Bhupinder Singh in the elections of Sarpanch and after
taking over, he had pursued a case of recovery of outstanding sum of
Rs.13,00,000/- from Smt. Kuldeep Kaur Sarpanch, which was due,
pertaining to her tenure in the year 2005-2010. He also stated that payments
of works executed in his tenure were made as per procedure prescribed and
after inspection, measurement of the works made by J.E., SDO and other
senior officials like DDPO etc.
8. Accused Baldhir and Dharambir, Gram Sachivs state d that
work in question was approved by majority of the Panches in the meetings
of the Panchayat and thereafter work was started and completed by J.E. and
SDO, who made measurements at the spot and thereafter, bills were
processed for release of payments by the Sarpanch and there was no fault on
their part since they performed their official duty as per rules.
9. Accused Prabhjot Singh, owner of Sardar Tractor, village
Dungra, Tehsil Indri, stated that he had executed the construction work of
village Panchayat of village Dungra and village Gumto and had received the
payments as per actual work recorded in the measurements done by J.E. and
other competent authorities of the Panchayat.
10. In the defence evidence accused examined DW-1 ASI Sumer
Singh, Record-Keeper, CM Flying Squad Office, Panchakula, who proved
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 5
enquiry report Ex.DW1/A conducted by ASI Karambir, in which accused
Ajit Singh Sarpanch was found innocent.
DW-2 Virender Singh, Clerk office of Director Panchayat,
Haryana, from official record proved enquiry report Ex.DW2/A, which was
conducted by Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Karnal, in
which allegations of complainant Bhupinder Singh against accused were
found false.
11. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial Court
acquitted all the four accused of the offences for which they had been
charge sheeted, vide judgment dated 30.11.2019.
12. Aggrieved by the said decision, complainant-Bhupinder Singh
has preferred the present appeal along with application for seeking leave to
file an appeal against acquittal of the accused/ respondents No.2 to 5.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended
that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved from evidence of the
complainant, officials of Panchayati Raj Department as well by Engineers of
Panchayati Raj as well PWD (B&R), who conducted measurement of the
work got done by accused Ajit Singh Sarpanch during his tenure and it was
found that not only the incomplete material was used but the quality of
material used was also sub-standard. He further contended that from the
prosecution evidence on record, it was also proved that payments were
shown to have been made by accused Ajit Singh Sarpanch in connivance
with co-accused, who were Gram Sachivs and a supplier of material. He
urged that there was embezzlement of sum of Rs.1,65,000/- of the
government money, which was done by forging the bills etc. He argued that
the trial Court has wrongly brushed aside the enquiry report by merely
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 6
relying upon the testimony of one of the independent witness, who turned
hostile. Learned trial Court has overlooked the fact that the fictitious bills
were got prepared by the Sarpanch in the name of Sardar Tractors for supply
of material, whereas the said firm had not dealt with the said material. There
were no signatures of the labourers in the muster roll. He submitted that the
judgment of acquittal overlooking the testimony of PW3 to PW33 and
enquiry report Ex.P-71 is absolutely illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes
of law and prayed that the present appeal be accepted by setting aside the
judgment dated 30.11.2019 and accused be convicted for the offences
charged with and be punished as per law.
14. A glance at the prosecution evidence shows that in order to
prove its case prosecution has examined PW-1 SI Ashok Kumar, who had
registered formal FIR Ex.P1 and made Endorsement Ex.P2.
PW-2 SI Sher Singh, conducted part investigation and during
such course arrested accused Ajit Singh Dharambir (Secretary) and Baldhir
Singh (Ex.Secretary).
PW-3 Bhupinder Singh son of Singara Singh, resident of
village Dungra, P.S.Indri, District Karnal, who is the complainant in this
case who proved his complaint Ex.P3 and and his statement Ex.P4 recorded
during the enquiry.
PW-4 Head Constable Sandeep Kumar joined in the
investigation with Investigating Officer/ ASI Harbhajan Singh on
27.06.2016 and Investigating Officer arrested accused Prabhjot Singh in this
case.
PW-5 ASI Rajinder Kumar - Investigating Officer deposed
regarding collecting of Panchayat record vide application given to BDPO
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 7
Indri and recording statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
PW-6 Vikas Kumar owner of M/s Kishan Enterprises Second
Gate, New Grain Market, Kurukshetra, proved bill No.711 dated 19.06.2013
of Rs.1,67,889/- regarding purchasing of pipe line by Ajit Singh Sarpanch,
during his tenure.
PW-7 Lakhwinder Singh son of Sucha Singh, resident of
village Dungra, stated that no pucca Ghat was made at the village and the
government money of Rs.1,00,000/- was embezzled by Sarpanch Ajit Singh.
PW-8 Sunil son of Lachhman Singh, a resident of village
Dungra, stated that Pucca Ghat at village Pond was not made. He was
declared hostile when he stated that he did not know whether any amount
was embezzled by the Sarpanch or not.
PW-9 Ramesh Kumar, Secretary Panchayat, Gumto, Tehsil
Indri, District Karnal, proved copies of record Ex.P11 to Ex.P14 of
Panchayat regarding taking over of charge by Sarpanch Ajit Singh and
handing over charge to Sarpanch Nishi Devi.
PW-10 Smt.Nishi wife of Om Parkash, resident of village
Gumto, present Sarpanch of village Gumto, deposed regarding handing over
of Panchayat record Ex.P15 to Ex.P51 and Ex.P70 to DSP Indri.
PW-11 Jitender Kasanwal, Manager, Union Bank of India,
Indri, deposed regarding handing over account opening form Ex.P52 to
Ex.P54 of Sardar Tractors Dungra to DSP Indri and proved his signature on
recovery memo Ex.P55.
PW-12 Kuldeep Singh J.E. Panchayati Raj, Indri, deposed
regarding handing over Measurement Book (MB) to DSP Indri and also
proved measurement entries Ex.P56 and Ex.P57.
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 8
PW-13 Raj Kumar, BDPO, Indri, deposed regarding handing
over of Ex.P58 to Ex.P63 regarding posting orders of accused Baldhir Singh
and Dharambir Singh Gram Sachivs and proved his signatures on recovery
memo Ex.P64.
PW-14 HC Krishan Kumar joined investigation with DSP
Kushal Pal on 14.03.2017 and deposed regarding inspecting of several sites
by SDO Gaurav Bhardwaj at village Gumto and village Dungra and proved
his signature on recovery memo Ex.P65.
PW-15 HC Rajiv Kumar, joined investigation with DSP Kushal
Pal Investigating Officer on 09.03.2017 and deposed regarding
investigating proceedings conducted by him and proved his signature on
recovery memo Ex.P66 and Ex.P67.
PW-16 Surender Singh J.E., PWD (B&R), Karnal checked and
measured the work at the sites in village Gumto and Dungra and proved
Measurement Reports Ex.P67 and Ex.P67/1, which were conducted in the
presence of DSP, Indri.
PW-17 Santokh Singh son of Mohar Singh, resident of village
Dungra, stated no Pucca Ghat of pond was built in village Dungra by Ex.
Sarpanch Ajit Singh. He was declared hostile as having suppressed the
exact amount of embezzlement.
PW-18 R.S.Punia, Sr.Scientific Officer, FSL, Madhuban,
proved Lab report Ex.PW18/A.
PW-19 Inspector Narender Singh, after completion of
investigation had prepared final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. against
accused and presented the same in the court.
PW-20 Constable Dheeraj, handed over photocopy of statement
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 9
of enquiry No.74/FSO/CM/15 to ASI Rajinder Singh which was taken into
police possession vide recovery memo Ex.P8.
PW-21 Ved Pal, Gram Sachiv, village Panchayat Gumto,
deposed regarding handing over photocopy of Cash Book, muster roll
register, proceeding book to DSP Kushal Singh.
PW-22 ASI Jagbir Singh also deposed regarding handing over
of aforesaid documents by Ved Pal to the Investigating Officer.
PW-23 Shyam Lal, DSP, CM Flying Squad, proved his enquiry
report Ex.P71, which was prepared by him after conducting the enquiry.
PW-24 Harvinder Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of village
Dungra, was a witness in the enquiry conducted, on a complaint made by
him against accused Ajit Singh Sarpanch, regarding allegations of
embezzlement of money.
PW-25 ASI Karambir Singh, deposed regarding collecting of
enquiry report Ex.P71 from ASI Sanjeev Kumar, which was taken into
police possession vide recovery memo Ex.P72.
PW-26 Gaurav Bhardwaj, SDO, Panchayati Raj, Indri,
inspected the sites of work at village Gumto and Dungra in the presence of
DSP Kushal Pal/ I.O. and had taken samples i.e. 8/8 tiles from both streets
and two samples of concrete from each street total four samples, which were
taken into police possession vide memo Ex.P65.
PW-27 ASI Harbhajan Singh, formally arrested accused
Prabhjot Singh on 27.06.2016.
PW-28 ASI Sanjeev Kumar deposed regarding handing over
enquiry report Ex.P71 to ASI Karambir on 21.03.2017, which was taken
into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P72.
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 10
PW-29 HC Bijender Singh, deposed that MM of Police Station,
Indri, handed over the case property i.e. samples to him and he handed over
the same for being deposited in FSL Madhuban for testing and proved entry
in register No.19 Ex.P73.
PW-30 Kushal Pal, DSP is the Investigating Officer, who
deposed regarding various investigation proceedings conducted by him
during the course of investigation.
PW-31 Ashok Rawal, Reader to learned Judicial Magistrate
Indri, proved signatures of learned Magistrate on orders dated 24.03.2017
Ex.P81 and Ex.P82.
PW-32 Kulbhushan Bansal, DDPO, Karnal, proved prosecution
sanction order Ex.P83 against accused Dharambir, Gram Sachiv.
PW-33 Ashwani Malik, Gram Sachiv, Block Indri, deposed
regarding handing over of Panchayat record i.e. Proceeding Book Ex.P16,
Muster-Roll Ex.P17, bills of Sardar Tractor Ex.P28, Proceeding Book
Ex.P29, MB Ex.P57 and Stock Register Ex.P18 to police, on 26.11.2015.
15. After having heard learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant
and perusing the impugned judgment as well as other relevant record, we
are of the considered opinion that the prosecution in the instant matter was
unable to prove its case against the accused/ respondents No.2 to 5 beyond
reasonable doubt.
16. Scrutiny of the prosecution evidence on record reveals that
PW5-ASI Rajinder, PW23-Sham Lal DSP and PW30-Kushal Pal DSP were
the officers, who conducted enquiry and investigation and these officers
were assisted by PW1-SI Ashok, PW2-SI Sher Singh, PW4-HC Sandeep
Kumar, PW14-HC Krishan Kumar, PW15-HC Rajiv Kumar, PW20-
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 11
Constable Dheeraj, PW22-ASI Jagbir Singh, PW25-ASI Karambir Singh,
PW27-ASI Harbhajan Singh, PW28-ASI Sanjeev Kumar and PW29-HC
Bijender Singh and PW19-Inspector Narender Singh, had prepared final
police report under section 173 Cr.P.C.
17. PW3-Bhupinder Singh, PW6-Vikas Kumar, owner of M/s
Kishan Enterprises, Kurukshetra, supplied material vide bill dated
19.06.2013 of Rs.1,67,889/- for the execution of works in question. PW7-
Lakhwinder Singh, PW8-Sunil, PW17-Santokh Singh and PW24-Harvinder
Singh were the villagers who complained about low quality of works
executed by Panchayat.
18. Officials of the Department of Panchayat including non-
technical officials were also examined i.e. PW9-Ramesh Kumar, Secretary
Panchayat, who had produced record Ex.P11 to Ex.P14. PW10-Smt. Nishi,
the present Sarpanch, handed over record to the Investigators. PW11-
Jitender Kasanwal, Manager, Union Bank of India, produced bank record
Ex.P53 and Ex.P54 regarding opening of bank account of Sardar Tractor
Dungra and PW21-Ved Pal, Gram Sachiv Gumto produced and proved
books of accounts Ex.P21 to Ex.P51 and Ex.P69. PW33-Ashwani Malik
Gram Sachiv Indri proved documents Ex.P5 to Ex.P18 regarding
proceedings of the Panchayat and bills of JCB.
19. The technical/engineering officers were also examined PW12-
Kuldeep Singh J.E. Panchayati Raj, deposed regarding the entries in the
Measurement Books Ex.P56 and Ex.P57. PW13-Raj Kumar BDPO Indri
produced posting orders of accused Baldhir and Dharamvir Singh, Gram
Sachivs as Ex.P58 to Ex.P63. PW16-Surinder Singh J.E. testified regarding
measurements Ex.P67/1 and report Ex.P67 of works done by the Panchayat
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 12
and such measurements being made in the presence of Investigators. PW26-
Gaurav Bhardwaj SDO Panchayati Raj, Indri, deposed regarding inspection
of the spot made with Investigators and taking samples, which were taken
into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.P65. PW32-Kulbhushan
Bansal, DDPO, Karnal, proved prosecution sanction order Ex.P83 of
accused Dharambir Gram Sachiv.
20. Prosecution also produced scientific evidence by way of
examining PW18-Dr. R.S. Punia, Senior Scientific Officer, Physics, FSL,
Madhuban, who proved FSL report Ex.PW18/A.
21. This fact had been admitted by PW3-Bhupinder Singh (PW3)
during his cross-examination that his wife Kuldeep Kaur remained Sarpanch
of Panchayat of village Dungra for the period 2005 to 2009 and audit of
accounts of the Panchayat was done during her tenure. He also admitted that
he had served in police department for 32 years. He denied the suggestion
given by accused Ajit Singh that audit team found embellishment of sum of
Rs.13,00,000/- in the tenure of his wife and accused Ajit Singh being the
next Sarpanch pursued the matter of recovery of Rs.13,00,000/- from his
wife.
22. The present case had been registered on the basis of enquiry
report Ex.P71 conducted by PW23-DSP Sham Lal, in which it was
concluded that all the four accused in furtherance of their common object
and in conspiracy with one another embezzled sum of Rs.1,65,595/- of the
Panchayat, by using either sub-standard or incomplete material and by
making payments of bills for different works as narrated in the said enquiry
report. While stepping into witness box as PW23, this witness has admitted
in his cross-examination that during the course of enquiry he had not got the
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 13
works inspected at the spot or got these measured and even could not tell
the name of the persons whose statements were recorded by him during the
course of enquiry. A perusal of his enquiry report Ex.P71 reveals that he
had mentioned therein that in the earlier enquiry conducted by ASI
Karambir allegations of the complainant were found not true and
complainant had made a complaint against ASI Karambir for giving a
wrong enquiry report in order to help the accused. Trial Court has rightly
pointed out that no material came in the enquiry of PW23 to show any
wrongful act of ASI Karambir.
23. PW30-DSP Kushal Pal, the Investigating Officer, who had
investigated the allegations after registration of FIR. Perusal of his
deposition reveals that it is substantially based on the record collected
during investigation and measurement reports of Engineers of Panchayati
Raj Department and PWD, who inspected the spot of works and took
samples and sent the same for analysis to the Laboratory and also collected
bills of the suppliers of the material.
24. PW16-Surinder Singh, J.E., PWD (B&R), Karnal stated that he
had visited the villages Gumto and Dungra, on 10.01.2017 and measured
the work got done during the tenure of accused Ajit Singh Ex.Sarapnch and
had given his report Ex.P67 and Ex.P67/1. But testimony of this witness is
of no help to the prosecution as during his cross-examination this witness
admitted the fact that before undertaking measurements, he had not obtained
record from the Panchayat.
25. PW18-R.S. Punia, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL has also
admitted during his cross-examination that by the passage of time strength
of cement and concrete decreases. PW7-Lakhwinder, one of the villagers
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 14
had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not gone through the
record of the Panchayat. The other villager PW8-Sunil turned hostile and
did not support the case of the prosecution. PW10-Smt. Nishi, present
Sarpanch of village Gumto, who was elected in the year 2016 for five years
admitted in her cross-examination that previous Sarpanch i.e. accused Ajit
Singh had handed over the charge of Panchayat record and articles to her,
which included pipes about 300 in number.
26. From the testimony of DW1-ASI Sumer Singh, Record-Keeper,
who proved enquiry report dated 28.11.2014 Ex.DW1/A of ASI Karambir
Singh, it stands proved that the allegations of the complainant were found
false. From Ex.DW2/A, letter dated 25.06.2014 of DGP, State Vigilance
Buero and Ex.DW2/B, letter dated 10.09.2015 of Director, Panchayat
respectively, it is proved that Director Panchayat had agreed with the
enquiry report of Deputy CEO, Zila Parishad, Karnal, in which it was
concluded that allegations of the complainant were not substantiated against
the accused.
27. After comparative analysis of the prosecution evidence and
defence evidence, trial Court has rightly held that although these facts stood
proved that samples of the works executed during the tenure of accused Ajit
Singh Sarpanch, were taken and tested in the Lab and shortcoming in the
strength of material was found, yet at the same time officer of FSL admitted
this fact that with the passage of time such strength of cement and concrete
decreases and as such, FSL report ipso-facto could not be accepted as a
conclusive evidence to believe the fact that material used in the works was
sub-standard as alleged by the prosecution and some more and strong
evidence, technical in nature, was required to prove the alleged fact, which
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 15
has not been produced by the prosecution.
28. Engineers of PWD and Panchayati Raj, who have been
examined as prosecution witness have merely deposed regarding the fact
that the work was measured at the spot and samples were drawn in their
presence and measurement of such works was recorded in the Measurement
Book kept in the office of Panchayat. There is no such evidence on record
that entries made in the Measurement Books were forged by any of the
accused. This fact has again been admitted by Officers/officials of
Panchayati Raj Department that payments of works in question were made
as per measurements recorded by Engineers in the Measurement Books. As
already observed some of the villagers, who have been examined by the
prosecution in support of its allegations have not supported the prosecution
case and the villager, who supported such allegations admitted the fact that
he had not gone through the record of the Panchayat. Complainant-
Bhupinder Singh has also admitted the fact that her wife remained as
Sarpanch before accused Ajit Singh was elected as Sarpanch. Trial Court
has, thus, rightly reached at the conclusion that in the given circumstances
possibility of motivated complaint due to village politics could not be ruled
out against accused Ajit Singh Ex.Sarpanch. Stand of accused Dharambir
and Baldhir Singh Gram Sachivs stood vindicated that they had performed
their duties and processed the correspondence and bills as per measurements
furnished by technical/ engineering staff and payments were sanctioned and
made as per authorization of the Panchayat and the drawing and disbursing
officer. They cannot be held responsible for any fault in the measurement/
use of material, which would have been lapse on the part of technical/
engineering officials/ officers, who executed the work and measured said
CRM-A-545-2020 (O&M) 16
work in the Measurement Books, who had not been prosecuted for the
reasons best known to the prosecution.
29. It is a settled position that an order of acquittal is not to be
interfered with lightly because presumption of innocence of the accused is
further strengthened by acquittal. Interference is called for only under
compelling circumstances, where impugned findings are perverse,
unreasonable and convincing material on record is ignored unjustifiably by
the trial Court. Reference in this regard can be made to judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in 'Mahamadkhan Nathekhan vs. State of Gujarat'
2014 (14) SCC 589.
30. Learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant was unable to
point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment
dated 30.11.2019.
31. No other argument was addressed.
32. In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of leave to
appeal against acquittal of respondents No.2 to 5 and the same is declined.
Appeal is dismissed.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
04.03.2025.
Komal
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No
Whether reportable? : Yes/ No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....