THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.807 of 2006 23-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Sri Durga Malleswara Devastanam, Durgapuram, rep. by its Receiver/Advocate …..Appellant AND M.Muralikrishna & another …..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.807 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment dated 16.01.2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.899 of 2003 whereby the learned Magistrate found the first respondent-sole accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC and acquitted him of the charges.
The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:
For the purpose of keeping the valuable articles belonging to the Durga Malleswara Devastanam, the complainant being the receiver of the temple along with one Sikaklulapu Nageswara visited the shop of the accused and placed an order for supply of iron safe i.e. Beeruva to be manufactured with 16’ gage thickness sheet with two locks along with one strong safe locker with four cabins with an height of 75” and width of 36 inches and depth of 20 inches excluding bottom legs. The accused delivered the said Beeruva on 14.8.2002 and after taking delivery of the said Beeruva, the complainant noticed that it is not in accordance with the specifications as ordered and it is totally inferior quality. Immediately, the complainant got issued a notice to the accused on 4.9.2002 demanding to pay an amount of Rs.7,812/- and to take return of the Beeruva. The accused got issued reply with all false and baseless contentions. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 409 and 420 IPC.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of defence, no evidence was adduced.
After evaluating the entire evidence brought on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused holding that except the oral testimony, no documentary evidence is placed by the complainant to prove that he has placed an order with the accused shop with specific measurements and the ingredients of Sections 409 and 420 IPC have not been established.
The learned trial judge after appreciating the evidence rightly acquitted the accused on the ground that even admitting the entire case of the prosecution as projected, no offences under Section 409 and 420 IPC are attracted since the accused is not having any intention of deception or fraudulent inducement. Further even if an inferior quality of Beeruva is supplied as alleged, the complainant has the remedy to agitate it before the competent forum. Hence, the impugned order of acquittal need not be interfered with. Now it is submitted by the learned complainant that in view of acquittal recorded by the trial court, the accused-respondent issued a notice claiming damages in the year 2006. This Court is of the view that merely because a criminal complaint is ended in acquittal that itself will not give right to claim damages before the civil Court. Further, basing on the alleged notice issued in 2006, no civil suit can be filed since it is a time barred claim.
In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 23.12.2014 Tsr