Madappa vs Dodda Muniyappa

Subhash B. Adi

Appeal by the complainant questioning the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No. 911/2007 dated 15.10.2011, on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.

The case of the complainant was that, on 12.12.1996 (12.2.1996 as stated by the appellant) appellant-complainant entered into an agreement for sale in respect of house property bearing property No. 36 measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South 30 feat situated at Shettarahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk for Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 10,000/ was paid as an advance amount to the accused. However, the complainant came to know that accused No. 1 had no right, title or interest over the said property in order to cheat the complainant by taking advantage of his name resembles with the owner of the said property had personated the real owner and created fraudulent agreement and committed offence punishable under Sections 417, 419 and 420 of IPC, The matter was referred to the Sub Inspector of Police, Devanahalli for investigation. After investigation the Investigation Officer has filed "B" final report. As against winch, objections application was filed. Thereafter, summons was issued.

Before the trial Court, complainant got himself examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3 as witnesses to the said agreement. He got marked Ex, P1-Form No.9, Ex. P2-Form No.10 and also produced Xerox copy of the alleged agreement.

The trial Court held that, to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 417, 419 and 420 of IPC, the complainant was required to produce fraudulent documents alleged to have been executed by the accused. However, no effort was made by the complainant to produce the documents executed by the accused. In view of the same, trial Court acquitted the accused.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Xerox copy of the agreement amounts to secondary evidence. He relied on judgment of this Court reported in Gafarsab @ Sati Gafar Sab Vs. Ameer Ahamed, and submitted that the trial Court was not justified in not raferring Xerox copy marked in the evidence.

Admittedly there is no primary nor even secondary evidence. Merely producing Form Mo. 9 and Form No. 10 does not constitute an offence that accused had executed agreement of sale. The Xerox copy of the agreement is not admitted in the evidence, nor it is proved as secondary evidence. The trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence has acquitted the accused. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court.

Accordingly, appeal fails and stands dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No. 1/2011 is disposed off.