2013 (8) TMI 1104 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Allows Condonation of Delay, Dismisses Appeal Due to Lack of Evidence

State Versus Om Prakash and Ors.

The court allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal. The respondents were acquitted of all charges due ... - Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the petition.2. Acquittal of respondents u/s 489A/489B/489C/489D/34 IPC.3. Obligation of Special Cell officials to maintain a register of arrival and departure.4. Discrepancies in the testimonies of police officials regarding the timing of FIR registration.5. Use of private vehicles in conducting the raid.6. Recovery and printing of fake Indian currency notes (FICN).7. Allegation of tampering with the case property.8. Non-joining of public witnesses during the search and raid.Summary:Condonation of Delay:The court allowed the application for condonation of 173 days' delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal, stating, 'For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the present leave to appeal is condoned.'Acquittal of Respondents:The State filed a leave to appeal u/s 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the respondents of all charges u/s 489A/489B/489C/489D/34 IPC. The trial court had acquitted the respondents based on the prosecution's failure to involve any independent witness or respectable persons of the locality.Obligation to Maintain Register:The trial court observed that all police officials, irrespective of their rank, are bound to record their arrival and departure in the register as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The members of the raiding party did not make any entry, leading the court to conclude that it is possible to manage the rojnamcha register.Discrepancies in Testimonies:There were material contradictions in the testimonies of police officials regarding the timing of FIR registration. The court noted, 'The above mentioned discrepancies are inconsistent to the case of prosecution and, therefore, cannot be relied upon.'Use of Private Vehicles:The trial court found the use of private vehicles for the raid suspicious as no special reason was provided, and no log book was maintained. The court stated, 'The testimonies of the police official witnesses are dissatisfactory with regard to this circumstance also.'Recovery and Printing of FICN:The prosecution failed to show how FICN were printed on both sides by the respondent Om Prakash. The court noted, 'This further weakens the case of the prosecution as rightly considered by the trial court.'Tampering with Case Property:The yellow coloured envelopes in which FICN were recovered were missing when the case property was opened before the trial court. The court held, 'There is a possibility of tampering with the case property in the instant case.'Non-joining of Public Witnesses:The court emphasized the mandatory duty u/s 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call independent and respectable inhabitants during searches. The court agreed with the trial court that the efforts made by the police to involve public witnesses were not genuine and sincere.Conclusion:The court concluded that leave to appeal should be granted only in exceptional cases where the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse. The court stated, 'We do not find any reasons for interference in the present case. Accordingly, no grounds are made out and the petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed.'