Pramod Kumar Mahto vs. State Of Bihar& Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.13 of 2010 PRAMOD KUMAR MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS -----------

5. 05.05.2010 This application for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed on 29th October 2009 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur under Complaint Case No. 1416 of 2004/Tr.No.1892 of 2009 whereby the O.P.Nos. 2 and 3 were tried under the charges under Sections 323 and 379 IPC and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted them on the grounds as detailed in the judgment.

The complainant's case was that he owned a truck bearing Regd. No.WVI 7499 which was being run for carrying goods. It was further stated that the O.P.No.2 was also running transport business in the name and style of 'Amrapali Transport' and he used to carry assignments of Indian Oil Corporation. It was further stated that the O.P.No.2 agreed with the petitioner for carrying on business of carriage from the Indian Oil Corporation jointly and it was also agreed that the profits earned in the business will be shared half and half between them. It was further stated that the O.P.No.2 received Rs.1,50,000/- from Indian Oil Corporation and the petitioner, as per the agreement, had to get half of it, but the O.P.No.2 did not give that money to the petitioner. Further allegation was that subsequently, the O.P.No.2 got employment in the Railways and he left his carriage business with the IOC and during the employment he started living in Quarter No. 370/C within RPF Railway Colony, Samastipur. It was further stated that the

O.P.No.2 asked the petitioner to come to his quarter for receiving the share of profit earned from the IOC. Accordingly, on 2nd November 2004 the petitioner with his son came to the residential quarters of the O.P.No.2, stayed there during the night and in the ensuing morning when the petitioner asked for his share money, the O.P.Nos. 2 and 3 snatched the agreement paper which was prepared between them and they also assaulted them with fists and slaps and the gold chain and wrist watch of petitioner's son were snatched away and on the point of pistol, the petitioner and his son were threatened and were driven out from the quarter. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint.

While recording the order of acquittal, the learned Magistrate considered that in support of the complaint petition, only two witnesses were examined who were highly interested ones. It was also considered that two independent witnesses, namely, Lagandeo Sahani and Pran Rai were named by the complainant, but out of them, Lagandeo Sahani was not examined and Pran Rai was not produced for cross-examination after charges, hence, his evidence could not be considered to carry any value in the eye of law. Besides this, the learned trial court also considered that the petitioner stated about the agreement with the O.P.No.2 regarding sharing of the profit earned from the IOC but any such agreement was not produced in court. It was also considered that it was the case of the petitioner that his truck was engaged in carrying consignment of IOC, but any document showing any permit or any other paper regarding engagement of petitioner's truck in the said transaction was not produced. It was also considered that the petitioner alleged that his son's gold chain and wrist watch were snatched, but any paper regarding purchase of those articles was not produced.

While arguing the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to draw attention towards Annexure-1 which is typed letter on the pad of Amrapali Transport stated to have been written by O.P.No.2 Surendra Mehta saying that he hired petitioner's truck from 30th July 197 to 31st December 1997 on hire charge of Rs.50,000/- . It was argued that there is an agreement between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 regarding petitioner's truck, but this letter was not exhibited before the trial court in the case and it is not an exhibit of that case. Therefore, it is not possible to look into that paper. Moreover, this letter indicates a context different from that, as stated in the complaint petition that the agreement between them was only to the extent that share of the profit will be distributed half and half between them.

Thus hearing I find that the learned trial court was justified in recording the order of acquittal. There is no ground for making any interference in the order passed by the learned trial court. As such, this S.L.A. is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad, J )