1 2025:CGHC:16291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1106 of 2025 1 - Kallu @ Krishna Yadav S/o Nathulal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Kotrabhata, Police Station - Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil - Arang, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s)/Complainant. Versus 1 - Shiv Kumar S/o Vishal Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Kotrabhata, Police Station - Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil - Arang, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. .. Respondent(s)/Accused. For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing instant Cr.M.P. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of 64 days. 3. On due consideration, I.A. No.1/2025 is allowed and delay is condoned. 4. Also heard on application for leave to Appeal under Section 419 (4) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.11.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) in Case No.4358/2021 whereby, respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth “IPC”). 5. Brief facts of the case are that the land of petitioner/complainant and his brother late Ballu @ Balram Swami was acquired by Naya Raipur AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.04.08 17:38:37 +0530 2 Development Authority for which compensation was awarded during 22.11.2007 to 30.11.2007 and disbursed to them through a cheque amounting to Rs.12,83,250/-. It has been mentioned that respondent/accused, in a deceitful manner, transferred the said amount to his own account and committed criminal breach of trust. 6. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record, has given its finding by assigning reasons that the complainant has failed to prove that his brother-late Ballu has no authority to withdraw the amount solely and has also not proved the cheque through which the amount was withdrawn. Considering the said infirmities, acquittal order in favour of respondent/accused was passed. Hence, this petition has been filed for grant of leave to appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. He further submits that complainant is an illiterate person whose close relative i.e. maternal uncle namely Shiv Kumar/accused, in a deceitful manner, transferred the amount into his own account, therefore said offence has been established. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant documents annexed with the petition. 9. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P., (2006) 9 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court does not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive 3 at a finding as to whether the views of the Trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of the scrutiny by the Appellate Court. 10.Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred the case of Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh {(2002) 2 Supreme 567)}. It was further held that the principle 4 to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and if relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 11.Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, it is vivid that the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons to the effect that the cheque through which the amount was withdrawn has not been proved as also the fact that late Ballu @ Balram Swami alone has no right to withdraw the amount from his and complainant’s joint account. Moreover, mother (Devantin Bai, DW-1) of the complainant was examined by the respondent/accused and she has stated that the subject land was already sold in favour of respondent/accused and only the said land was recorded in the name of both the brothers and on that backdrop, the compensation amount was given to them. 12. Considering the reasons assigned by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the said court is plausible one and as such, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the same warranting interference of this Court. 13.In the result, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal. 14.Accordingly, leave is refused and in consequence, this Cr.M.P is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash