Full Judgment
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated March 3, 19S1 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nohar, acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 380, IPC.
2. The case is more than 9 years old. The prosecution case, in brief, was that Hira Lal complainant lodged a report at the police station, Nohar, on 27th January, 1980, alleging that the accused had sold to him a camel for Rs 5,500/- but when the complainant had gone oat, the accused took away the camel in his absence and was not returning the same. It was alleged that the camel was taken away on 12th January, 1980. On this report, a case under Section 380, IPC was registered. After investigation the case was challaned in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nohar.
3. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had removed the camel from the house of the accused on 12th January, 1980, as alleged.
4. I have heard Shri S.S. Vyas, Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri M.K. Garg, counsel for the accused. A revision against the judgment under appeal was also filed earlier by Hira Lal in this Court, being S.B. Criminal Revision No. 195/81. The said revision was dismissed by this Court by the order dated May 25, 1981. In that order it was held:
The learned Magistrate after properly appreciating the evidence and other circumstances, has found that no offence is made out against the accused Lachhaman. There are no compelling reasons to disturb the finding arrived at by the learned Magistrate. Thus, the revision petition has no force, so it is here by dismissed summarily.
A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that this Court while dismissing the revision had categorically held that there was compelling reason to disturb the findings of the learned Magistrate who had properly appreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion that no offence was made out against the accused.
5. This apart, even after going through the judgment under appeal and the record of the case again I do not find any error in the said judgment to justify interference with the order of acquittal. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate are cogent, and there are no substantial grounds to justify interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal.
6. The appeal fails and here by dismissed.