CRM-A-1580 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 117(2) Harbag Singh Raj Kumar and another Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. CRM-31166 1. Limitation Act, 1963, is for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appe and also the accompanying appeal. 2. by an affidavit of the applicant application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave and also the accompanying appeal is hereby condoned. 3. CRM-A-1580 1. 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of impugned order dated 1580-MA-2014 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harbag Singh Versus Kumar and another Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate, and Mr. Amit Mann, Advocate, for the applicant Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate, for respondent no.1. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 31166-2014 Prayer in the present application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appe and also the accompanying appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant-appellant, the delay of 48 days in filing the application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave and also the accompanying appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. 1580-MA-2014 The applicant has filed the present application under Section Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1580-MA-2014 (O&M) Decided on:24.04.2025 ...Applicant-Appellant ...Respondent Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Amit Mann, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate, Prayer in the present application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appe For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported appellant, the delay of 48 days in filing the application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal and also the accompanying appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. Application stands disposed of. The applicant has filed the present application under Section leave to file an appeal against the .2014 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial 14 (O&M) Appellant ...Respondents Prayer in the present application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported appellant, the delay of 48 days in filing the to appeal The applicant has filed the present application under Section leave to file an appeal against the .2014 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.14 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1580 Magistrate, Hansi accused in a complaint 2. complaint under respondents- filed that he was in need of a tra along with Amrik Singh visited respondent no.1 regarding price of the Hindustan disclosed price of the said tractor to be of Rs.3,25,000/ Rs.70,000/- in cash and was told by respondent no.1 that rest of the amount would be got financed from Hisar. The applicant thereafter paid Rs.70,000/ time, respondent no.2 Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Hisar was also present there, who obtained signatures of the Singh were also obtained by him as a witness. Respondent no.1 took Rs.70,000/- in cash and taken 12 blank cheques from the applicant. However, thereafter, on 21.04.2004, when the applicant went respondent no.1 for delivery of tractor, he was asked to take delivery of one old tractor bearing registration no.HR21 already sold to one Nihal Singh son of Surja Ram and Ramphal son of Nihal Singh. The applicant refused to take delivery of the said tractor and asked respondent no.1 to deliver him a new tractor. He was assured by respondent no.1 for delivering a new tractor, failing which his amount of Rs.70,000/ would be refunded and the loan s 1580-MA-2014 (O&M) Hansi, vide which the trial Court has acquitted respondent in a complaint filed under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120B Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the applicant had filed a complaint under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC against the accused. It had been alleged by the applicant in the complaint filed that he was in need of a tractor for agricultural purposes and, therefore, he along with Amrik Singh visited respondent no.1 regarding price of the Hindustan Mahindra 405 DI tractor. On enquiry, he was disclosed price of the said tractor to be of Rs.3,25,000/ in cash and was told by respondent no.1 that rest of the amount would be got financed from Mahindra & Mahindra Hisar. The applicant thereafter paid Rs.70,000/ time, respondent no.2-Bhupender Sharma, Branch Manager of Financial Services Ltd., Hisar was also present there, who obtained signatures of the applicant on few papers and besides him, signatures of Amrik Singh were also obtained by him as a witness. Respondent no.1 took in cash and taken 12 blank cheques from the applicant. However, thereafter, on 21.04.2004, when the applicant went respondent no.1 for delivery of tractor, he was asked to take delivery of one old tractor bearing registration no.HR21-B-6292 of 2003 already sold to one Nihal Singh son of Surja Ram and Ramphal son of Nihal h. The applicant refused to take delivery of the said tractor and asked respondent no.1 to deliver him a new tractor. He was assured by respondent no.1 for delivering a new tractor, failing which his amount of Rs.70,000/ would be refunded and the loan sanctioned would also be - 2 - the trial Court has acquitted respondent no.1 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the applicant had filed a 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC against the alleged by the applicant in the complaint ctor for agricultural purposes and, therefore, he along with Amrik Singh visited respondent no.1-accused for enquiring 405 DI tractor. On enquiry, he was disclosed price of the said tractor to be of Rs.3,25,000/- and was asked to bring in cash and was told by respondent no.1 that rest of the amount Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Hisar. The applicant thereafter paid Rs.70,000/- to respondent no.1 and at that Bhupender Sharma, Branch Manager of Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Hisar was also present there, who obtained applicant on few papers and besides him, signatures of Amrik Singh were also obtained by him as a witness. Respondent no.1 took in cash and taken 12 blank cheques from the applicant. However, thereafter, on 21.04.2004, when the applicant went along with Amrik Singh to respondent no.1 for delivery of tractor, he was asked to take delivery of one old 6292 of 2003 model, which was already sold to one Nihal Singh son of Surja Ram and Ramphal son of Nihal h. The applicant refused to take delivery of the said tractor and asked respondent no.1 to deliver him a new tractor. He was assured by respondent no.1 for delivering a new tractor, failing which his amount of Rs.70,000/ anctioned would also be got cancelled from no.1- Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the applicant had filed a 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC against the alleged by the applicant in the complaint ctor for agricultural purposes and, therefore, he accused for enquiring 405 DI tractor. On enquiry, he was and was asked to bring in cash and was told by respondent no.1 that rest of the amount ices Ltd., to respondent no.1 and at that & Financial Services Ltd., Hisar was also present there, who obtained applicant on few papers and besides him, signatures of Amrik Singh were also obtained by him as a witness. Respondent no.1 took in cash and taken 12 blank cheques from the applicant. However, along with Amrik Singh to respondent no.1 for delivery of tractor, he was asked to take delivery of one old , which was already sold to one Nihal Singh son of Surja Ram and Ramphal son of Nihal h. The applicant refused to take delivery of the said tractor and asked respondent no.1 to deliver him a new tractor. He was assured by respondent no.1 for delivering a new tractor, failing which his amount of Rs.70,000/- cancelled from VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.14 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1580 the concerned bank. However, the applicant met respondent no.2 Bhupender Sharma, requesting him to cancel the loan agreement and to return cheques bearing nos.857201 to 857212 alongwith other documents, his repeated requests and efforts, neither the amount of Rs.70,000/ blank cheques were returned to him by the respondents. Thereafter, he learnt that the respondent entire loan amount as well as Rs.70,000/ that the respondents be prosecuted for the offences committed by them. 3. the trial Court, whereupon, though respondent no. trial Court, but respondent no.2, despite issuance of arrest warrants repeatedly did not appear and, thus, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 16.08.2012. On finding a charged for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120B IPC and after their respective evidence and on appreciation thereof, the trial Court found the charges against granting him benefit of doubt, he was acquitted of the charges vide impugned order dated 03.06.2014. Aggrieved against the said order, the applica approached this Court by way of filing the present application for granting special leave to appeal. 4. the applicant had produced credible oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the charges framed against respondent no.1; however, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the same. He submit 1580-MA-2014 (O&M) the concerned bank. However, the applicant met respondent no.2 Bhupender Sharma, requesting him to cancel the loan agreement and to return cheques bearing nos.857201 to 857212 alongwith other documents, his repeated requests and efforts, neither the amount of Rs.70,000/ blank cheques were returned to him by the respondents. Thereafter, he learnt that the respondents, in conspiracy with each other, had misappropriated his amount as well as Rs.70,000/- paid by him in cash. Thus, he prayed that the respondents be prosecuted for the offences committed by them. On appreciation of evidence, the respondent the trial Court, whereupon, though respondent no. trial Court, but respondent no.2, despite issuance of arrest warrants repeatedly did not appear and, thus, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 16.08.2012. On finding a prima facie case against respondent no.1, h charged for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120B after framing the charges, the trial commenced. Both the sides led their respective evidence and on appreciation thereof, the trial Court found the charges against respondent no.1 not having been proved and, thus, while granting him benefit of doubt, he was acquitted of the charges vide impugned order dated 03.06.2014. Aggrieved against the said order, the applica approached this Court by way of filing the present application for granting special leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the applicant had produced credible oral as well as documentary evidence in ort of the charges framed against respondent no.1; however, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the same. He submit - 3 - the concerned bank. However, the applicant met respondent no.2 Bhupender Sharma, requesting him to cancel the loan agreement and to return his blank cheques bearing nos.857201 to 857212 alongwith other documents, but despite his repeated requests and efforts, neither the amount of Rs.70,000/- nor the blank cheques were returned to him by the respondents. Thereafter, he learnt , in conspiracy with each other, had misappropriated his paid by him in cash. Thus, he prayed that the respondents be prosecuted for the offences committed by them. On appreciation of evidence, the respondents were summoned by the trial Court, whereupon, though respondent no.1 had appeared before the trial Court, but respondent no.2, despite issuance of arrest warrants repeatedly did not appear and, thus, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated case against respondent no.1, he was charged for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120B framing the charges, the trial commenced. Both the sides led their respective evidence and on appreciation thereof, the trial Court found the respondent no.1 not having been proved and, thus, while granting him benefit of doubt, he was acquitted of the charges vide impugned order dated 03.06.2014. Aggrieved against the said order, the applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present application for granting Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the applicant had produced credible oral as well as documentary evidence in ort of the charges framed against respondent no.1; however, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the same. He submitted that PW2 Beera the concerned bank. However, the applicant met respondent no.2 Bhupender blank but despite nor the blank cheques were returned to him by the respondents. Thereafter, he learnt , in conspiracy with each other, had misappropriated his paid by him in cash. Thus, he prayed s were summoned by 1 had appeared before the trial Court, but respondent no.2, despite issuance of arrest warrants repeatedly, did not appear and, thus, he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated e was charged for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120B framing the charges, the trial commenced. Both the sides led their respective evidence and on appreciation thereof, the trial Court found the respondent no.1 not having been proved and, thus, while granting him benefit of doubt, he was acquitted of the charges vide impugned has approached this Court by way of filing the present application for granting Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the applicant had produced credible oral as well as documentary evidence in ort of the charges framed against respondent no.1; however, the learned that PW2 Beera VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.14 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1580 Mashi deposed that he was employed as a mechanic in the agency of respondent no.1 in the year 2004 agency for purchasing of a tractor. Respondent no.1 had shown a tractor bearing registration no.HR21 to purchase the old tractor and asked for the new one, but the learned tr Court had failed to appreciate the same and have illegally disbelieved the evidence of PW2 appearing as PW3, had duly supported the case of the applicant wherein he deposed that the applicant had v applicant was asked to make payment of Rs.70,000/ amount was promised to be got financed by Services Ltd., Hisar. supported the case of the applicant that respondent no.1 had been paid Rs.70,000/- Kumar, Registration Clerk in the office of SDM, Hansi, had brought the record of tractor bearing per record, was in the name of Nihal Singh and Ramphal. PW7 Ramphal also deposed that he had purchased the said tractor from respondent no.1 for a consideration of Rs.3,55,000/ got financed but due to some mechanical problem to respondent no.1. He, thus, submit by the applicant before the trial Court, the charges framed against re no.1 were duly proved and there was no possibility of any benefit of doubt, but the learned trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence led before it and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court while acquitting 1580-MA-2014 (O&M) Mashi deposed that he was employed as a mechanic in the agency of respondent no.1 in the year 2004 when the agency for purchasing of a tractor. Respondent no.1 had shown a tractor bearing registration no.HR21-B-6292 to the applicant, for which he had refused to purchase the old tractor and asked for the new one, but the learned tr Court had failed to appreciate the same and have illegally disbelieved the evidence of PW2. He further submitted appearing as PW3, had duly supported the case of the applicant wherein he deposed that the applicant had visited the agency of respondent no.1 and the applicant was asked to make payment of Rs.70,000/ amount was promised to be got financed by Services Ltd., Hisar. It has been submitted supported the case of the applicant that respondent no.1 had been paid by the applicant in cash. He Kumar, Registration Clerk in the office of SDM, Hansi, had brought the record of tractor bearing registration no.HR21-B-6292 and prove per record, was in the name of Nihal Singh and Ramphal. PW7 Ramphal also deposed that he had purchased the said tractor from respondent no.1 for a consideration of Rs.3,55,000/-, out of which the got financed but due to some mechanical problem to respondent no.1. He, thus, submitted that in view of the evidence produced by the applicant before the trial Court, the charges framed against re no.1 were duly proved and there was no possibility of any benefit of doubt, but the learned trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence led before it and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court while acquitting - 4 - Mashi deposed that he was employed as a mechanic in the agency of the applicant had visited the said agency for purchasing of a tractor. Respondent no.1 had shown a tractor 6292 to the applicant, for which he had refused to purchase the old tractor and asked for the new one, but the learned tr Court had failed to appreciate the same and have illegally disbelieved the ted that Jagan Singh Rohilla, while appearing as PW3, had duly supported the case of the applicant wherein he isited the agency of respondent no.1 and the applicant was asked to make payment of Rs.70,000/- in cash and the balance amount was promised to be got financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial It has been submitted that the said witnesses had duly supported the case of the applicant that respondent no.1 had been paid by the applicant in cash. He further submitted that PW1 Anil Kumar, Registration Clerk in the office of SDM, Hansi, had brought the record 6292 and proved that the tractor, as per record, was in the name of Nihal Singh and Ramphal. PW7 Ramphal also deposed that he had purchased the said tractor from respondent no.1 for a , out of which the amount of Rs.2,55,000/- was got financed but due to some mechanical problem, he returned the said tractor that in view of the evidence produced by the applicant before the trial Court, the charges framed against respondent no.1 were duly proved and there was no possibility of any benefit of doubt, but the learned trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence led before it and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court while acquitting Mashi deposed that he was employed as a mechanic in the agency of applicant had visited the said agency for purchasing of a tractor. Respondent no.1 had shown a tractor 6292 to the applicant, for which he had refused to purchase the old tractor and asked for the new one, but the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the same and have illegally disbelieved the that Jagan Singh Rohilla, while appearing as PW3, had duly supported the case of the applicant wherein he isited the agency of respondent no.1 and the in cash and the balance Financial had duly supported the case of the applicant that respondent no.1 had been paid that PW1 Anil Kumar, Registration Clerk in the office of SDM, Hansi, had brought the record that the tractor, as per record, was in the name of Nihal Singh and Ramphal. PW7 Ramphal also deposed that he had purchased the said tractor from respondent no.1 for a was he returned the said tractor that in view of the evidence produced spondent no.1 were duly proved and there was no possibility of any benefit of doubt, but the learned trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence led before it and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court while acquitting VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.14 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1580 respondent no.1, being perverse in nature, are totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same deserve to be set aside and respondent no.1 deserves to be convicted for the charges proved against him. 5. submissions evidence produced by the applicant was full of material contradictions. Respondent no.1 was prosecuted in a clandestine manner by the applicant by way of filing a false respondent no.1, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., ha specifically denied the allegations leveled against him. He further submitted that in support of his defence, respondent no.1 got examined Balbir Singh, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Jind as DW1 and Surender Singh as DW2. Besides this, the documentary ev on appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties, the complaint filed by the applicant was rightly dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubts. He fu per the law settled, the order by virtue of which the accused is acquitted can be interfered with findings is observed. However, there being no perversity in the impugned order passed, the application filed, being without any merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. with their able assistance. 7. were to the effect that he had paid Rs.70,000/ 1580-MA-2014 (O&M) t no.1, being perverse in nature, are totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same deserve to be set aside and respondent no.1 deserves to be convicted for the charges proved against him. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, however, has oppo made by learned counsel for the applicant. He submit evidence produced by the applicant was full of material contradictions. Respondent no.1 was prosecuted in a clandestine manner by the applicant by way of filing a false and frivolous complaint against him. He submit respondent no.1, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., ha specifically denied the allegations leveled against him. He further submitted that in support of his defence, respondent no.1 got examined Balbir Singh, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Jind as DW1 and Surender Singh as DW2. Besides this, the documentary evidence was also produced. He submitted that on appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties, the complaint filed by the applicant was rightly dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubts. He fu per the law settled, the order by virtue of which the accused is acquitted can be with by the higher Court in a situation if any perversity in the findings is observed. However, there being no perversity in the impugned order passed, the application filed, being without any merit, deserves to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The precise allegations made by the applicant in the complaint were to the effect that he had paid Rs.70,000/ - 5 - t no.1, being perverse in nature, are totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same deserve to be set aside and respondent no.1 deserves to be convicted for the charges proved against him. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, however, has opposed the made by learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the evidence produced by the applicant was full of material contradictions. Respondent no.1 was prosecuted in a clandestine manner by the applicant by and frivolous complaint against him. He submitted that respondent no.1, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., ha specifically denied the allegations leveled against him. He further submitted that in support of his defence, respondent no.1 got examined Balbir Singh, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Jind as DW1 and Surender Singh as DW2. idence was also produced. He submitted that on appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties, the complaint filed by the applicant was rightly dismissed as the applicant-complainant had failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubts. He further submitted that as per the law settled, the order by virtue of which the accused is acquitted can be by the higher Court in a situation if any perversity in the findings is observed. However, there being no perversity in the impugned order passed, the application filed, being without any merit, deserves to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record The precise allegations made by the applicant in the complaint were to the effect that he had paid Rs.70,000/- in cash to respondent no.1 for t no.1, being perverse in nature, are totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same deserve to be set aside and respondent no.1 deserves to be sed the that the evidence produced by the applicant was full of material contradictions. Respondent no.1 was prosecuted in a clandestine manner by the applicant by that respondent no.1, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has specifically denied the allegations leveled against him. He further submitted that in support of his defence, respondent no.1 got examined Balbir Singh, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Jind as DW1 and Surender Singh as DW2. idence was also produced. He submitted that on appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties, the complaint complainant had rther submitted that as per the law settled, the order by virtue of which the accused is acquitted can be by the higher Court in a situation if any perversity in the findings is observed. However, there being no perversity in the impugned order passed, the application filed, being without any merit, deserves to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record The precise allegations made by the applicant in the complaint in cash to respondent no.1 for VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.14 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1580 purchasing a tractor from the agency of respondent no.1. The total price of the tractor quoted was Rs.3,25,000/ amount, excluding Rs. & Mahindra respondent no.2. The applicant produced seven prosecution witnesses. He produced Naveen Kumar as PW4, who brought the summoned re bearing registration no.HR21 Agreement as Ex.P9 and Loan Agreement as Ex.P10. However, this witness, after deposition in examination examination after fr considered. Besides, Shamsher Singh had appeared as PW6, who deposed that in 2004, he had purchased the said tractor from respondent no.1 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- the said tractor was in the name of Nihal Singh and Ramphal. He also deposed that he never made any transaction with the applicant. However, the statement of this witness could also not be considered as he did not appear for his cross-examination after framing of charge. From appreciation of rest of the evidence produced on record, it has been found that in the complaint filed the applicant Rohilla and their Rs.70,000/- mentioned in the complaint filed witnesses initially, but they were produced as wi them, were not the witnesses to the delivery of amount of Rs.70,000/ contended by the learned counsel for the applicant. On further re 1580-MA-2014 (O&M) purchasing a tractor from the agency of respondent no.1. The total price of the tractor quoted was Rs.3,25,000/- and there was amount, excluding Rs.70,000/- given in cash, would be financed by Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Hisar, i.e. the finance company of respondent no.2. The applicant produced seven prosecution witnesses. He produced Naveen Kumar as PW4, who brought the summoned re bearing registration no.HR21-B-6292 and had tendered copy of Assignment Agreement as Ex.P9 and Loan Agreement as Ex.P10. However, this witness, after deposition in examination-in-chief, did not appear for further cross examination after framing of charge. Thus, his evidence could not be considered. Besides, Shamsher Singh had appeared as PW6, who deposed that in 2004, he had purchased the said tractor from respondent no.1 for a sum of -, which was a new one tractor and the Reg the said tractor was in the name of Nihal Singh and Ramphal. He also deposed that he never made any transaction with the applicant. However, the statement of this witness could also not be considered as he did not appear for his examination after framing of charge. From appreciation of rest of the evidence produced on record, it has been found that in the complaint filed the applicant, no role was assigned to PW2 Beera Mashi and PW3 Jagan Singh Rohilla and their names or their presence at the time of handing over of cash by the applicant to respondent no. mentioned in the complaint filed nor they were cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses initially, but they were produced as wi them, were not the witnesses to the delivery of amount of Rs.70,000/ contended by the learned counsel for the applicant. On further re - 6 - purchasing a tractor from the agency of respondent no.1. The total price of the and there was a promise that rest of the given in cash, would be financed by Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Hisar, i.e. the finance company of respondent no.2. The applicant produced seven prosecution witnesses. He produced Naveen Kumar as PW4, who brought the summoned record of tractor 6292 and had tendered copy of Assignment Agreement as Ex.P9 and Loan Agreement as Ex.P10. However, this witness, chief, did not appear for further cross aming of charge. Thus, his evidence could not be considered. Besides, Shamsher Singh had appeared as PW6, who deposed that in 2004, he had purchased the said tractor from respondent no.1 for a sum of , which was a new one tractor and the Registration Certificate of the said tractor was in the name of Nihal Singh and Ramphal. He also deposed that he never made any transaction with the applicant. However, the statement of this witness could also not be considered as he did not appear for his further examination after framing of charge. From appreciation of rest of the evidence produced on record, it has been found that in the complaint filed , no role was assigned to PW2 Beera Mashi and PW3 Jagan Singh or their presence at the time of handing over of cash by the applicant to respondent no.1 were never found nor they were cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses initially, but they were produced as witnesses lateron. Thus, both of them, were not the witnesses to the delivery of amount of Rs.70,000/-, as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant. On further re-appreciation purchasing a tractor from the agency of respondent no.1. The total price of the promise that rest of the Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Hisar, i.e. the finance company of respondent no.2. The applicant produced seven prosecution witnesses. He cord of tractor 6292 and had tendered copy of Assignment Agreement as Ex.P9 and Loan Agreement as Ex.P10. However, this witness, chief, did not appear for further cross- aming of charge. Thus, his evidence could not be considered. Besides, Shamsher Singh had appeared as PW6, who deposed that in 2004, he had purchased the said tractor from respondent no.1 for a sum of istration Certificate of the said tractor was in the name of Nihal Singh and Ramphal. He also deposed that he never made any transaction with the applicant. However, the statement further examination after framing of charge. From appreciation of rest of the by , no role was assigned to PW2 Beera Mashi and PW3 Jagan Singh or their presence at the time of handing over of were never found nor they were cited as witnesses in the list of . Thus, both of , as appreciation VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.14 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1580 of evidence, it has been found that the applicant appeared as PW5 and that he was a rustic villager, whereas it was specific stand of respondent no.1 that the applicant was a graduate and a Proprietor of a dealership agency of the tractors, namely, M/s Virendra Tractor Agency by the applicant that one Satyawan son of Dilbag opened an agency on his land and he was not in the knowledge that the said agency is still running or not appreciation of the deposition of the applicant, material contradictions had been found in the same credible one. 8. doubt was on the applicant and once he failed to discharge this burden, respondent no.1 deserves the benefit of doubt favour by the learned trial Court while acquitting respondent no.1 leave to appeal has been sought against the same. As per higher Court can intervene in the case of acquittal only in case there is perversity in the finding arrived at. Simply on the reason that there is another view also possible, is not sufficient enough to reverse the acquittal arrived at by learned trial Court. As per the criminal jurisprudence, every accused is presumed to be i Supreme Court, once the accused is acquitted by the Court of law, there lies double presumption of innocence in his favour. Hence, an Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquitta cavalier manner and it is only in case of perversity of the findings, the Appellate Court should interfere in the acquittal order passed by the trial Court. In Jafarudheen and others vs 1580-MA-2014 (O&M) of evidence, it has been found that the applicant appeared as PW5 and that he was a rustic villager, whereas it was specific stand of respondent no.1 that the applicant was a graduate and a Proprietor of a dealership agency of the tractors, namely, M/s Virendra Tractor Agency cant that one Satyawan son of Dilbag opened an agency on his land and he was not in the knowledge that the said agency is still running or not appreciation of the deposition of the applicant, material contradictions had been found in the same and, thus, his evidence itself was not found . Needless to say, the burden of proving doubt was on the applicant and once he failed to discharge this burden, respondent no.1 deserves the benefit of doubt favour by the learned trial Court while acquitting respondent no.1 leave to appeal has been sought against the same. As per higher Court can intervene in the case of acquittal only in case there is perversity in the finding arrived at. Simply on the reason that there is another view also possible, is not sufficient enough to reverse the acquittal arrived at by learned trial Court. As per the criminal jurisprudence, every accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the accused is acquitted by the Court of law, there lies double presumption of innocence in his favour. Hence, an Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal arrived at by the trial Court in a cavalier manner and it is only in case of perversity of the findings, the Appellate Court should interfere in the acquittal order passed by the trial Court. Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala - 7 - of evidence, it has been found that the applicant appeared as PW5 and deposed that he was a rustic villager, whereas it was specific stand of respondent no.1 that the applicant was a graduate and a Proprietor of a dealership agency of the tractors, namely, M/s Virendra Tractor Agency, which fact was responded to cant that one Satyawan son of Dilbag opened an agency on his land and he was not in the knowledge that the said agency is still running or not. On appreciation of the deposition of the applicant, material contradictions had s, his evidence itself was not found to be proving his case beyond reasonable doubt was on the applicant and once he failed to discharge this burden, respondent no.1 deserves the benefit of doubt and as such, was granted in his favour by the learned trial Court while acquitting respondent no.1. The present leave to appeal has been sought against the same. As per the law settled, the higher Court can intervene in the case of acquittal only in case there is perversity in the finding arrived at. Simply on the reason that there is another view also possible, is not sufficient enough to reverse the acquittal arrived at by learned trial Court. As per the criminal jurisprudence, every accused is nnocent until proven guilty. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the accused is acquitted by the Court of law, there lies double presumption of innocence in his favour. Hence, an Appellate Court l arrived at by the trial Court in a cavalier manner and it is only in case of perversity of the findings, the Appellate Court should interfere in the acquittal order passed by the trial Court. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC Online SC 495, it deposed that he was a rustic villager, whereas it was specific stand of respondent no.1 that the applicant was a graduate and a Proprietor of a dealership agency of the , which fact was responded to cant that one Satyawan son of Dilbag opened an agency on his land . On appreciation of the deposition of the applicant, material contradictions had to be case beyond reasonable doubt was on the applicant and once he failed to discharge this burden, ch, was granted in his The present law settled, the higher Court can intervene in the case of acquittal only in case there is a perversity in the finding arrived at. Simply on the reason that there is another view also possible, is not sufficient enough to reverse the acquittal arrived at by learned trial Court. As per the criminal jurisprudence, every accused is nnocent until proven guilty. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the accused is acquitted by the Court of law, there lies double presumption of innocence in his favour. Hence, an Appellate Court l arrived at by the trial Court in a cavalier manner and it is only in case of perversity of the findings, the Appellate Court should interfere in the acquittal order passed by the trial Court. 2022 SCC Online SC 495, it VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.14 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1580 is held that Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing order of trial Court rendering acquittal, relevant para of the same reads thus: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reas innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of th accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. anvil of law settled, this Court finds no perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Resultantly, the present application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed. April 24, 2025 vinod* 1580-MA-2014 (O&M) is held that Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing order of trial Court rendering acquittal, relevant para of the same reads thus: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of th accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present anvil of law settled, this Court finds no perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Resultantly, the present application for grant of leave to appeal is , 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 8 - is held that Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing order of trial Court rendering acquittal, relevant para of the same reads thus: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The on is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of th accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case on the anvil of law settled, this Court finds no perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Resultantly, the present application for grant of leave to appeal is (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES is held that Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing order of trial “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The on is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal case on the anvil of law settled, this Court finds no perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Resultantly, the present application for grant of leave to appeal is VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.14 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document