State of Rajasthan vs Akhlesh Kumar Sharma

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.—This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 15-11-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sheoganj, Dist, Sirohi by which on the application of the complainant as well as accused after attesting the compromise for offence u/s 406, IPC acquitted the accused respondent for the offence.

This appeal arises in the following circumstances :

(i) The accused respondent had obtained loan to the tune of Rs. 22000/- under the Literate Unemployment Scheme from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Shivganj on 7-12-1984 and executed documents in favour of the complainant-Bank and the goods purchased by this loan were hypothecated and hypothecation deed was also executed in favour of the Bank, but the accused respondent disposed of said goods and thus, he committed criminal breach of Trust and for that a report was lodged by the Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Shivganj in the Police Station Shivganj on 5-8-1994.

On this report, police chalked out regular FIR and after investigation challan was filed against the accused respondent for offence u/s 406, IPC.

In 4-8-1995, the learned trial Magistrate framed charge for offence u/s 406, IPC against the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During trial, one witness was got recorded on behalf of the prosecution.

During pendency of the trial on 15-11-1995 an application was moved on behalf of the complainant Bank and the accused respondent to the effect that since payment had been made by the accused respondent, therefore, the Bank did not want to proceed further and it was prayed that this compromise be got attested and the accused respondent be acquitted.

On the basis of that compromise, the accused respondent was acquitted of the charge for offence u/s 406, I.P.C.

Aggrieved from the said judgment this appeal has been filed by the State.

In this appeal, it has been argued by the learned P.P. that since amount of loan was Rs. 22000/- and u/s 320(2), Cr.P.C. permission for compounding the offence for criminal breach of trust can only be grated where value of the property does not exceed 250/-, but in the present case, since the value of the property exceeds Rs. 250/-, therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate is without jurisdiction and hence it should be set aside.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submits that the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate is based on correct appreciation of law and facts and the same do not call for interference by this Court.

I have heard both and perused the record.

In my considered opinion, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is stated that in the present case the accused respondent was acquitted on the basis of compromise and since payment was made outside the Court, therefore, no purpose will be served in proceeding further against the accused respondent. Hence, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate does not call any interference by this Court.

For the reasons mentioned above, the present state appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 15-11-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shivganj.