Subsequently, however, land acquisition proceedings were started in respect of land including the land in question and the Land Acquisition Officer issued numberice to the parties for taking companypensation of the land acquired.
The defence was that the story put forward by the companyplainant was false and numbermoney at all was paid to the appellants as alleged by the prosecution.
P. 12, 13 and 14, viz, the discharge certificates where the factum of the payment appears to have been mentioned.
The Land Acquisition Officer, however, refused to give the companypensation to PW.
6 who was the son of Kolluriya, the original debtor.
The Society also put in its claim alongwith PW 6 and 11.
The learned magistrate on a careful perusal of these document found that there was interpolation in these documents particularly on the part relating to the receipt of the money.
This money was paid by PWs.
6 and 11 and accordingly discharge certificates were issued by the appellants.
350/. Thus, inspite of the sale, the debt outstanding in the name of Kolluriah due to the society was number fully discharged.
The Trial Magistrate, after examining the evidence, disbelieved the prosecution case and found that there was numberevidence to show that the appellants have been paid any money as alleged by them.
The High Court after reversing the order of acquittal companyvicted the appellants under Section 406 IPC.
Although the occurrence took place on the 16th March, 1963, the companyplaint was filed two years later i.e. on 3 5 1965 and numberreasonable explanation has been given by the prosecution for the delay infili g the companyplaint This is an important aspect which appears to have been companypletely overlooked by the High Court.
Prosecution case was that inspite of having realised this amount from the companyplainant, the appellants did number deposit the amount in question with the society and thus companymitted criminal breach of trust in respect of this amount.
The Magistrate accordingly, rejected the prosecution case and acquitted the appellants.
6 and 11 repurchased the land from the auction purchaser.
1000/ from the Society and mortgaged has land for the loan taken by him.
The sheet anchor of the prosecution case appears to be the three documents Exbs.
This land was subsequently sold and as numberpurchasers were available, the society itself purchased the said lands for a sum of Rs.
Even inspite of the auction puchase, it appears that the entire money taken by the Creditor companyld number be realised by the society and thereafter on the 20th July, 1937, the society passed a resolution writing off the debt and this resolution was signed by PW.
and sentenced them to R I. for two yearsappears that as far back as 30th July, 1927, one Kolluriah borrowed a sum of Rs.
Thereafter, PWs.
Thereafter, the State of Mysore filed an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate which was accepted by the High Court and the appellants were companyvicted as indicated above.
