IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (City NAME)
1. NAME S/o F NAME R/o Tehsil (NAME)District (NAME).
2. NAME S/o F NAME R/o Tehsil (NAME)District (NAME).
3. (NAME) S/o (F NAME)R/o Tehsil (NAME) District (NAME).
V E R S U S
1. (NAME) S/o (NAME) R/o Tehsil (NAME) District (NAME).
2. The State
APPLICATION U/S 249-A CR.P.C FOR THE ACQUITTAL OF ABOVE MENTIONED ACCUSED/PETITIONERS
Brief Facts are as under:-
1. That, the above mention accuseds /petitioners are booked in case FIR No.(000) dated (00-00-0000) U/S 420-468 PPC and are facing trial on bail.
2. That, formal charge has been framed against the accused/applicants by this Honorable Court U/S 419-420 for which the applicant/accused have pleaded not guilty.
3. That, the above mentioned case is now fixed before this Hon’ble Court for the prosecution evidence.
4. That, the accused/applicants invoking jurisdiction of this this Hon’ble Court U/S 249-A Cr.Pc through instant application for their acquittal, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-
a That, the accused/applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case for ulterior motives and malafide intention of private complainant and his Pws.
b That, the FIR of the case has been falsly concocted on false and fabricated pleas taken by complainant and his PWs.
c That, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant party (private prosecution witnesses) have filed consumer complaints on (00-00-000) before District Consumer Court (NAME) (NAME) in respect of the above mentioned dispute which has been dismissed (copies are annexed).
d That, the case against the accused be registered by inordinate and unexplained delay of about 8 months is highly doubtful furthermore FIR itself does not transpire about the specific day of time of occurrence on this sole score the FIR and accusation looses their authenticity.
e That, the consumer complaints referred above have been based on managing and engineering forged and fabricated/false receipts in connection with the business shop of the accused/applicants the proceedings of the above referred complaints are their selves self-explanatory.
f That, from bare reading of FIR the matter between the parties is spelt out of Civil in nature and FIR has been registered only to blackmail and pressurized the accused/applicants and present case has been registered at the behest of complainant with collusion of local police to cover their evil designs of forgery and cheating for which complainant himself and his Pws are liable to be prosecuted under proper penal section of law.
g That, the offence if admitted to be committed for the sake of arguments yet the present section of law as applied in the case do not attracts properly as the offence if any clearly and squarely falls within the penal provision of special law i.e The Seeds Act 1976.
h That while taking cognizance of offences this Honorable Court has grievously fell in error and violated the special law as this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction regarding the matter related to sale of uncertified and substandard seeds.
i That, it is settled law that when there are two parallel statute the special law will prevail on general law in this case the statue creates special offence regarding to the seeds business according to seeds Act 1976 and special procedure for the complain is available which is not obeyed by the police more so, the offence comes U/S 11 r/w Section 23 of the seeds Act 1976 which is non cognizable by police.
j That, the recoveries from the accuseds/petitioners according to the recovery memo are simultaneous, joint recoveries on joint pointation and have not annexes with the previously stuff alleged to be sold out which is inadmissible in law.
k That, one prosecution witness (NAME)S/o (F NAME)R/o (NAME) had sworn the affidavit before consumer court in which he stated that “he do not purchase the seeds from the accused/petitioners“ (Copy of affidavit is annexed as annexure “A”)
l That, discrepancies in the statements of all the prosecution witnesses which narrate different facts related to the purchase of seeds which creates un-curable contradiction and doubts in the persecution evidence and if evidence would be lead to be recorded is no evidence at all.
m That, on the basis of above mentioned facts and circumstances it is transpire from the material collected by the police that prosecution evidence has serious doubts and dents prima facie, so far there is no possibility and probability of the conviction of the accuseds/petitioners after recording of prosecution evidence.
n That, even if the witnesses are not examined the provision of 249-A meant to prevent the rigours of a prolong trial when it is apparent from the record that there is no probability/possibility of accused being convicted of offence recording of further evidence would wastage of public time and no serve public interest rather on the contrary such futile exercise would proved to be further seconduless to the accused person who equally deserved justice and fair treatment.
o That, serious dents in the prosecution case coupled with wrongly taking of conginze being mislead by police are the special circumstances which no where warrants the prescribe convection in future in the light of precedent lead down by superior court from time to time.
p That, undersigned council craves leave to add/argue/leave/change any ground/s with the kind permission of Honorable court at the time of arguments.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this application, the accuseds/petitioners may kindly be acquitted in accordance with law and in the ends of justice.
Advocate High Court,
Advocates High Court,