AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 1881/2010
This I.A. has been filed for condoning the delay of two days in filing this petition.
In spite of notice, nobody appears to oppose the prayer. Accordingly, delay of two days in filing this petition is condoned.
I.A. is disposed of.
Cr. M.P. No. 1555/2009
Heard Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on merits at length.
This petition has been filed under sections 482 and 378(4) Cr.Pc for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.04.2009 passed by Sri Abhas Verma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, acquitting the accused persons-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 from the charges under sections 420/34 IPC. Mr. Krishna submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were fully aware with the fact that the part of the lands in question was government land and therefore, they shared common intention with their father in selling it to the petitioner; receiving consideration on that account; and thereby cheating the petitioner.
After going through the records carefully and hearing Mr. Krishna, we are not inclined to grant leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment.
It appears that the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint alleging that Raj Kishore Mishra (died during the trial) and opposite party nos. 2 to 4 cheated him by selling government land by registered sale deed along with other lands of the accused persons. It is further alleged that when the complainant applied for mutation of the land, he learned about the said facts. On this, he approached the accused persons who agreed to execute another sale deed, but they did not honour their words. It is therefore submitted that from the very beginning, intention of the accused persons was to cheat the petitioner. Learned trial court has inter-alia held that the petitioner or his wife-vendee did not satisfy themselves about the nature of the lands before it''s purchase which was situated adjacent to the house of the petitioner and the same was being cultivated by the accused persons. In this circumstances, the trial court observed that the role of the opposite party no. 2-Sumant Kumar Mishra (identifier) and opposite party nos. 3 and 4 (witnesses to the sale deed) was limited to identify the vendor and vendee regarding the transaction. Learned trial court further found that there was unexplained delay of more than two months in filing the complaint. It also observed that the petitioner did not take steps for cancellation of the sale deed before the competent Civil Court. After taking into consideration the respective cases of the parties and materials brought on record by them, learned trial court acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
Though prosecution has not proved clearly as to whether opposite party nos. 2 to 4 had knowledge about the nature of the land in question, but even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that they had such knowledge, we are not inclined to take view different from what has been taken by the trial court. Moreover, the alleged occurrence took place about ten years back.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case in totality, we do not find any reason to grant leave to the petitioner to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.