M/S. GOA PLAST PRIVATE LIMITED v. SHRI. HENRY PINTO AND 2 ORS
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that no case has been made out by the complainant for grant of leave against the impugned order of acquittal. The Magistrate upon appreciation of the…
Judgment
M/S. GOA PLAST PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY MR. I. B. MUCHANDI Versus SHRI. HENRY PINTO AND 2 ORS., ... Applicant ... Respondents Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Mr. A. R. Kantak, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 29th September, 2008 P.C.
Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. A.F.Diniz, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3.
By this application, the complainant seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.9.2007 passed by the J.M.F.C., Panaji in Private Criminal Case No.176/1994/B acquitting the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for the offences under sections 406, 409,420 r/w. 120-B of I.P.C.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that no case has been made out by the complainant for grant of leave against the impugned order of acquittal. The Magistrate upon appreciation of the evidence of Mr. Muchandi, who was examined on behalf of complainant as well as respondent Nos. 2 & 3/the accused, has come to the conclusion that the offences for which the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were charged, were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the Magistrate, cannot be treated as perverse so as to warrant interference in appeal against the acquittal. It is well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that the power to interfere in an appeal against acquittal, is very limited and unless the findings recorded by the Magistrate are palpably wrong or perverse, no interference is called for in appeal against acquittal. The findings recorded by Magistrate for acquitting the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, cannot be termed as perverse to warrant grant of leave against the impugned order. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant leave to the complainant. Hence, the application is dismissed. SMA A. P. LAVANDE, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 29 Sep 2008. The bench was A P LAVANDE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.