Gopal Mandal vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 & 3.

This petition has been filed for granting leave to prefer an appeal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 11.12.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XV, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2012, whereby, the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 235 of 1999, were set aside by the Appellate Court below, and the appellants (private respondents herein), were acquitted of the charge giving benefit of doubt. The Trial Court had found the private respondents guilty and convicted them for the offences under Sections 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

The impugned Judgment passed by the Appellate Court below shows that the occurrence had allegedly taken place on 24.10.1998 at about 2:00 p.m., when the Gumti of "Katras Dugdh Utapdak Sahyog Samittee Limited" was demolished, from which, 1000 Kg. of Ghee and other milk products worth Rs.2,00,000/- were allegedly taken away by the accused private respondents. It is alleged that the local police was informed on the date of occurrence itself, but no action was taken and ultimately, the compliant was filed on 23.02.1999, after the delay of about four months. Impugned Judgment also shows that mainly on the ground of delay in filing the complaint case, as also on the ground that there was illegality in framing of charge, as no date or place of occurrence were detailed in the charge, the Appellate Court below has set aside the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the Trial Court and has allowed the criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the complainant petitioner has submitted that the delay in filing the complaint case had been properly explained during the trial, inasmuch as, the complainant, who was examined as CW-4, has stated that, in the meantime, he had reported about the incident to the DC and the SP, Dhanbad, but, no action was taken by them. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accordingly, the delay of four months was properly explained by the complainant. Learned counsel has also submitted that non-mentioning of the date and place of occurrence in framing the charge against the accused persons was not such an illegality, on the basis of which Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed against the private respondents could be set aside. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that impugned Judgment passed by the Appellate Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondents have opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Appellate Court below. It is submitted that the delay of four months was never explained, as the alleged informations given before the DC and the SP, Dhanbad, were neither brought on record nor proved by the complainant. Learned counsels have also submitted that neither the date of occurrence nor the place of occurrence was explained at the time of framing of charge and therefore, conviction and sentence of the private respondents have been rightly set aside by the Appellate Court below.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we find that the complainant was aware of the occurrence on the very date of occurrence itself. If the police did not accept the FIR lodged by the complainant, the complaint case ought to have been filed by the complainant within a reasonable time, but, there is an inordinate delay of four months in filing the complaint, which goes to the very root of the prosecution case. The learned Appellate Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that there is inordinate delay of four months in filing the complaint and accordingly, has set aside the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed against the private respondents by the Trial Court.

We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 11.12.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XV, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2012. We find that no case is made out for granting leave for filing appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal.

There is no merit in this application, which is accordingly, dismissed.