Search Results

FORM NO. 8 ORDER AUTHORISING AN ATTACHMENT BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OR COLLECTOR ( See  Section 83) To,  The District Magistrate/Collector of  The District of ...................................... Whereas complaint has been made before me that ( name, description and address ) has committed ( or  is suspected to have committed) the offence of ......................, punishable under section ........................... of the Indian Penal Code, and it has been returned to a warrant of arrest thereupon issued that the said ( name ) cannot be found; and whereas it has been shown to my satisfaction that the said ( name ) has absconded ( or  is concealing himself to avoid the service of the said warrant) and thereupon a Proclamation has been or is being duly issued and published requiring the said ( name ) to appear to answer the said charge within .................... days; and whereas the said...................is possessed of certain land paying revenue to Government in the village ( or  town) of .............. in the District of ..........; You are hereby authorised and requested to cause the said land to be attached in the manner specified in clause ( a ) or clause ( c ), or both* of sub-section (4) of Section 83, and to be held under attachment pending the further order of this Court, and to certify without delay what you may have done in pursuance of this order. Dated, this....................day of................,20... ( Signature ) ( Seal of the Court ) * Strike off the one which is not desired. Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.15/-)

Application for gaining time to produce witnesses BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF…………….. Criminal Application No. ……………… of ………. (On behalf of the complaint) In Case No. …………………. of 20……….. (Under Section ………………… I.P.C.) District………………………….. Sri ….……………….. S/o……………….. R/o…………………… P.S. ………………. District ……………. …………..... …C omplaint Versus Sri ………………….. S/o ……………….. R/o…………………… P.S. ……………….  District……………. …………..... … Accused To The Hon'ble Judge of the aforesaid Court. The humble complainant most humbly showeth as under: That in the aforesaid case the complainants witnesses have not come to the Court on account of the strike by the Roadways employees. PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the complainant to produce his witnesses on the next date. Date …………                 Advocate for the Complainant Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.15/-)

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.30/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.30/-) Criminal Complaint u/ss 323, 324, 504 & 506 r/w sec 34 of the Indian penal code IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS, (COURT NO. 2), MUMBAI AT MUMBAI Criminal Complaint No. Shri __ D M _ K _, ) age 35 years, occupation - service, )        Complainant resident of 1000 ……………., ) MUMBAI 400 011. ) Versus Shri B _ J P _, ) age 56 years, occupation - business, ) Shri S B P , ) Accused age 25 years, occupation - business, ) both residents of 1050 ……….., ) MUMBAI 400001. ) A COMPLAINT U/SS 323, 324, 504 & 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF   THE INDIAN PENAL CODE The complainant above-named submits this complaint, praying to state as follows: 1. That the complainant is a resident of the within mentioned address, and the said house property is owned by the accused No. 1 and let out to this complainant as a monthly tenant. 2. That the complainant is a Government servant, peace-lover and law- abiding citizen. 3. That in the month of 2010 the accused No. 1 called upon this complainant to vacate the said premises within a week or so. 4. That since this complainant did not vacate the said premises, the accused No. 1 then again on….., the son of the accused No. 1, i.e. the accused No. 2, came to the complainant and threatened him of the dire consequences, if the complainant, if the complainant were to fail or avoid to vacate the said premises before the end of….2010….. 5. That the complainant submits that he did not vacate the said premises, and he was not legally bound to do so. 6. That then, on….., at 6.30 p.m., when this complainant had been returning from his office to his residence, while he was entering the said premises, both the accused accosted the complainant and started abusing him in a dirty and filthy language, and even though the complainant tried to convince and tell them that what they were doing was all illegal, both the accused attacked the complainant and gave him a number of blows with fists and lastly the accused No. 2 gave a severe blow with a cudgel/staff/ stick in his hand on the forehead of this complainant and thereby caused a serious injury to the complainant, and the complainant had also become unconscious. 7. That when the people staying in the neighbourhood gathered there, the accused stopped beating and they both went away, announcing and pronouncing a threat that if the Complainant were to fail to vacate the said premises within a couple of days, he would be killed, and hence, this complaint. 8. That the cause of action for this complaint first arose on……and the same has since then been every day thereafter, and hence, this complaint filed today is well within limitation. 9. That the offence has been committed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, and hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint. 10. That the necessary court-fee is paid herewith. 11. That the complainant, therefore, prays that the accused be kindly charged with and tried for the offence punishable u/ss 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/W Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and punished according to law. MUMBAI, Sd/- DMK COMPLAINANT Dated:. Sd/- x X x ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT VERIFICATION I, Shri DMK, the present complainant, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of this complaint in paras 1 to 11 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and so I have signed hereunder. Sd/- DMK COMPLAINANT

FORM NO. 55 WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT AND SALE ON FORFEITURE OF BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR ( See  Section 446) To, The Police Officer in charge of the police station  at................................ Whereas (name, description and address) did, on the............................... day of..........................20................. give security by bond in the sum of rupees..........................for the good behaviour of (name, etc., of the principal), and proof has been given before me and duly recorded of the commission by the said (name) of the offence of.................... whereby the said bond has been forfeited ; and whereas notice has been given to the said (name) calling upon him to show cause why the said sum should not be paid, and he has failed to do so or to pay the said sum ; This is to authorise and require you to attach by seizure movable property belonging to the said (name) to the value of rupees................... which you may find within the district of..........................  and, if the said sum be not paid within.................to sell the property so attached, or so much of it as may be sufficient to realise the same, and to make return of what you have done under this warrant immediately upon its execution. Dated, this ............................. day of ..................., 20...   (Signature) (Seal of the Court)   Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.15/-)

Withdrawal of prosecution by the Public Prosecutor - Application for under Section 321, Cr. P.C. BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF………………….. Criminal Application No. ……………… of ………. (Under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C.) On behalf of  the State………………………… In Case No. ……………… of 20………………….. (Under Section ………………………… I. P. C.) District…………………………………………….. State………………………………………………. Versus Sri …………………..  S/o ………………..  R/o ……………………  P.S. ……………….  District ………………… …………......…Accused To, The Hon'ble Judge of the aforesaid Court the Prosecuting agency /authority, the State most humbly showeth as under: 1. That from the perusal of the records of the aforesaid case, it appears that no prima facie case is made out against the accused.  To continue with the aforesaid prosecution shall result in the unnecessary harassment of the accused. In the aforesaid circumstances may I seek the permission of the Hon'ble Court to withdraw the aforesaid case as against the above named accused. Date…………. Yours faithfully, P. P. or A. P.P.* Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.15/-)

Draft of suspension letter   By Hand, Regd. A.d., U.P.C.     To Dated...................... Shri.............................. S/o.................................. Designation...................... Address............................ SUBJECT: SUSPENSION   I had already served you a charge sheet dated……….. And, the charges of misconduct have been leveled against you as per the rules of the organisation.   That by above alleged misconduct you are creating a bad atmosphere at the working place, which is harming our organisation and also the working of other workers.    For conductance of proper enquiry against you and in order to maintain discipline in the organisation, you are hereby suspended from your services w.e.f..................               You will be entitled to receive a substance allowance of Rs........................ per month during the period of suspension as per rules. You are directed to report yourself daily at……….time at the Factory Gate and record your attendance Card and also make yourself present for receiving communications and directions intended for you.   (AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.15/-)

APPLICATION U/S 121 Cr. P. C. BEFORE THE COURT OF............................ SESSION JUDGE, DELHI Criminal appeal No............................. 2002 In re: - AB.................................................. Appellant/applicant versus  State of NCT Delhi....................................................... PS Appeal u/s 373 Cr. P. C. r/w Sec. 121 Cr. P. C. Criminal Appeal u/s 373 Cr. P. C. against the order dated............................. passed by SEM............................ in Criminal Case No.................................... refusing acceptance of search Most respectfully showeth: - 1. That appellant faced proceeding u/s 107 of Cr. P. C. and learned SEM was pleased to pass an order for keeping bound for............................ month, however refused in accepting the surety. 2. Aggrieved by non-acceptance appellant filed the-application before the Hon’ble court on the following grounds. (a) That order appealed against refusing to accept the surety bond is not at all in conformity with mandatory provision of Section 121 Cr. P. C. (b) That the Surety is quite fit and competent to stand since she is the wife of............................ is no valid reason. (c) That Lower court did not adequately comply with the provision of section 121(2)(3) respectively. (d) That refusal was based an police report who is in connivance with opposite party. PRAYER It is most humbly prayed that the appeal be allowed and an order be passed against rejecting the surety setting aside the said order. Counsel for Appellant Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.15/-)

FORM NO. 46 WARRANT TO DISCHARGE A PERSON IMPRISONED ON FAILURE TO GIVE SECURITY ( See  Section 442) To, The Officer in charge of the Jail  At............................................ (or other officer in whose custody the person is) Whereas (name and description of prisoner) was committed to your custody under warrant of this Court, dated the..................  day of ...................  , and has since with his surety (or sureties) duly executed a bond under Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ; This is to authorise and require you forthwith to discharge the said (name) from your custody, unless he is liable to be detained for some other matter. Dated, this ............................. day of ..................., 20... (Signature) (Seal of the Court) Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.15/-)

FORM NO. 29 BOND TO PROSECUTE OR GIVE EVIDENCE ( See  Section 170) I, ( name ) of ( place )………. do hereby bind myself to attend at…………in the Court of ……………at ……………o’clock on the …………day of ………………next and then and there to prosecute ( or  to prosecute and give evidence) ( or  to give evidence) in the matter of a charge of…………………..against one A.B. , and, in case of making default herein, I bind myself to forfeit to Government the sum or rupees. Dated, this ............................. day of ..................., 20... ( Signature ) Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.15/-)

FORM NO. 31 NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY MAGISTRATE TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ( See  Section 209) The Magistrate of ………………hereby  gives notice that he has committed one  for trial at the next Sessions ; and the Magistrate hereby instructs the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of the said case. The charge against the accused is that, etc., ( state the offence as in the charge ). Dated, this ............................. day of ..................., 20...   ( Signature ) ( Seal of the Court ) FORM NO. 31 NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY MAGISTRATE TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ( See  Section 209) The Magistrate of ………………hereby  gives notice that he has committed one  for trial at the next Sessions ; and the Magistrate hereby instructs the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of the said case. The charge against the accused is that, etc., ( state the offence as in the charge ). Dated, this ............................. day of ..................., 20...   ( Signature ) ( Seal of the Court ) Download Word Document In English. (Rs.15/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.15/-)

CRIMINAL APPEAL Download Word Document In English. (Rs.40/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.40/-) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  (CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Criminal Appeal No......................... 72002 In the Matter of: -Shri......................... S/o..................................... Appellant Through Parokar.................. if appeal is filed through relatives/friend S/o........................................ r/o........................................ Versus The State of NCT, Delhi........................... Respondent Criminal Appeal Against the order dated and passed by ASJ, Delhi convicting the appellant u/s 392/397/34 of IPC and sentencing to undergo RI for a period of 7 years. Most respectfully showeth: - That the humble appellant was tried by Ld. Additional Session Judge, Delhi for the offence u/s 392/397/34 IPC and on conviction, sentenced to undergo RI seven years, vide order dated 24-12-2001: 2. That the brief fact of prosecution leading to the trial before the Ld. ASJ is that on 7-9-2000,..............................., a mistry by profession, came after finishing his work in....................... at about 9. 30 pm by his bicycle. On the way his bicycle was punctured as such he was pulling his bicycle to his residence and was passing by the side of a park near and over-head water tank near wazirpur red-light crossing. In the meantime all the three accused came cut of that park by scatting over the grill and all came in front of bicycle of the complainant. The accused............................ caught hold of the bicycle from the front side while co-accused....................... took out knife and wielded on the complainant and asked him to hand over whatever money he had with him and also threatened to stab at him, if he did not do so, one of them removed one diary and one currency note of Rs. 50/- from the pocket of his shirt. Meanwhile two scooterists who were passing stopped along with others and they caught hold of the said three accused persons. Accused...................... fell down, while attempting to run away fell down and in the process of climbing the wall of the park and sustained injuries on his head. Public assembled and gave beatings. PCR came, Local police arrived and accused were handed over to local police and tried after committed to session court. 3. That prosecution examined 7 witnesses including PW-3.................. the complainant. No public witness, inspite of clear report/statement that accused were stopped (a) by two scooterist and their pillar rider (b) collected lots of public who handed over the accused persons to the police at Red Light crossing, was examined to bring the correctness of the crime brought before court but convicted and sentenced to 7 years RI. 4. That being aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant wish to submit the following grounds: GROUNDS: - (A) That there was no such offence taken place at all, even if it is so, it was only & "pick pocketing" in terms of PCR report as referred in para 9 of the judgment - no robbery or dacoity as charged by the court had ever taken place. (B) That knife as alleged was planted later to make the case u/s 397 IPC for the public nor the two scooterist never spoke about the knife, nor they were produced as witness, hence the case is cooked up, more so three persons known to the victim (PW-3................ ) will not attack for a mere Rs. 50/- unless they knew that the victim is in possession of a big amount nor they did not even tried to snatch the cycle. Case is concocted to which police got benefit and PW-3. (C) That PW-3 (star witness as claimed by prosecution) states that his hand was held by Raju accused and point knife at his throat and tool-out money. On the other hand local police states (PW-7............... in para 10 of judgment) accused..................... was found possession of a folding knife in his right pocket of his wearing. There is contradiction. The PW-3 states in his statement before court that he was pulling cycle as his cycle was punctured, when mentioned about this neither in his Asal Tehrir improvement in his version, besides he states back as 9/9-30 pm. before court timing is 10. 15 pm. How could accused Raju take out  money and knife from his pocket when PW-3 was held by the both hands of accused Raju. In his cross-examination, he did not remember anything-who took out money and diary-but agreed to have sealed diary and Rs. 60-note (XX by App. ) Only a fabricated case against innocent person could come to such contradictory conclusion. (D) That interestingly PCR official never spoke about open knife nor folding knife which the accused were handed over to PCR official by public nor PCR official spoke about open and folding knife while handing over to Local police. It is certain if the accused were beaten by public including the two scooterists and their pillion rider, they must have handed over open knife alleged to have been placed at the throat of victim (PW-3) to police official of PCR or to local police. It is not done so, because there was no such knife nor such incident took place, it proves the case is concocted one, otherwise question of open knife or folding knife would have come to light. (E) That as per complainant, PW-3, it was two scooterists and their pillon rider who rescued him, besides police agreed presence of these two scooterists and large number of public at red-light crossing, still the prosecution did not brought to support truthfulness of prosecution version, then how could Ld. ADJ believe the version and how could court can come to conclusion to the correctness of the crime. It was absolutely one sided and wrong decision for no public witness was brought forwarded for deposition of correctness of the crime. Even not a single word either spoken or referred questioning police as to why police did not have them as witness since they (scooterists) were the first person to rescue the victim. (F) That police personnel having arrived later to the spot after civilian and scooterists took control over the accused are duty bound to supply the names of those persons who took control over the three accused. Prosecution/police did not do so, hence there is doubt if at all such things/incident were happened or not? The incident took place between 9 to 9. 30 PM and police arrived after 10. 30 PM. It is unlikely that the gathered public/crowd would have stayed for one hour or the scooterists would have stayed for an hour so that they could hand over the culprit. Prosecution story seems to be fraud and not possible. Conviction based on such irrelevant considerations need to be set aside for no such incident took place for no public would wait for an hour to hand over the culprit to police, if so why police did not took their names and produced as witnesses before court. (G) That story states that accused attempting to run away not possible for accused was surrounded by public, including two scooterists and beaten by public. Under the circumstances, it is unlikely his attempt to run away from the spot. It is agreed by prosecution that accused along with other co-accused were captured by public and handed over to the police (PCR), hence injury was not due to the process of attempting to run away as alleged. He was dashed by possibly against hard object like well or beaten by blunt object on head (over right side skull). Such injury could be caused by such treatment and not by fall. Rather 3rd degree method to accept the use was employed against. (Forceful confession). (H) That there is different version between PW-3 in his Asal Tehrir, FIR and that of statement before court. There is different version between police officials and PW-3 about knifes. That the question cycle "pulling" is something strange for a punctured cycle could only be pushed forward and can not be pulled. A person can only pull a thing towards himself in the sense if he was pulling the cycle, question of coming forward and standing of accused person before him is impossible. On pulling cannot a person moved backward. Hence attacking while going toward home (moving forwards) not plausible. There is material contradiction and it is serious as the versions cuts each other. PCR who first caught accused never speaks about knife nor those scooterists or public assembled there, while local police speaks about recovery of folding knife in accused pocket, complainant (PW-3) states that knife was pointed at his throat, itself a big contradiction and it seem knife was planted to make robbery for an offence Under Section 397 IPC. Appellant entitled to be acquitted in view of 1998 (1) JCC 108, Rahees Ahmad where material contradiction is too material as in this case. PRAYER It is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may to admit be pleased the appeal and call for record for the perusal and of hearing the counsel for the appellant and to set-aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and he be acquitted. To pass any other order which this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the circumstances and in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that pending final disposal of present appeal, this Hon’ble court please to release the appellant on bail and suspend the sentence passed against the appellant. For which act of kindness the humble appellant shall ever remain thankful to this Hon’ble court. New Delhi  Appellant Dated: Through Advocate

Criminal Appeal Download Word Document In English. (Rs.35/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.35/-) IN THE COURT OF THE   DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT __________                                                                                Criminal Appeal No. /2010 Shri                         ) Age __ years, occupation - service,         )Resident of Masjid Bunder,    ) District -______________                ) Versus The State of Maharashtra                ) (Notice to be served on the              ) District Government Pleader,            ) MUMBAI 400 005                             ) Appellant (Original Accused) Respondent (Original Complainant) Criminal appeal u/s 374 of the code of criminal procedure 1973 MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR (I) Brief History of the Case is as follows: 1. That the appellant was charged with and tried for the offence punishable u/s 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer SI for one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- I/d to suffer further SI for seven days. 2. That the said order of punishment has been passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadgaon Maval, in S.T.C.C. No. 1100/2007. 3. That the said judgment and order of punishment have been passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court on 7.3.2010. 4. That the Hon'ble Trial Court was pleased to hold the appellant guilty for the said offence u/s 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. That the alleged incident took place in the property bearing Gat No. ……………. District MUMBAI, where the appellant was constructing a new house for the residence of his family, while the appellant himself is working in Mumbai, and he occasionally and during holidays visits his family residing at the place where he has constructed a new house. 5. That the said work of construction of the house was assigned to a contractor, and the father of the appellant; who is old enough, used to visit and supervise the construction work from time to time. 6. That the appellant being in regular service at Mumbai could not visit or supervise or look after the construction activity of the said work, and had hardly paid any attention to the same personally. 7. That the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses, but no witness on behalf of the accused was examined, and the appellant is so unfortunate that while recording the statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, despite an enquiry made by the Hon'ble Lower Court as to  whether he had to examine any defence witness, the accused being totally ignorant and completely innocent did not avail of the opportunity offered to him, and therefore, no witness on his behalf or at his instance could be examined. 8. That the appellant respectfully submits that with a view to meeting the ends of justice, there should have been, at least, one witness, i.e. the father of the accused-appellant, who used to attend to and supervise the work of construction personally, should have been examined on behalf of the defence, but this did not happen, and for the same, the whole blame goes to none but the defence only. 9. That even though the said accident took place between 16.30 hours and 20.30 hours on 17.6.2007, the panchnama was drawn two days thereafter on 19.6.2007. (II) BEING AGGRIEVED BY AND DISSATISFIED WITH the judgment and order, dated 7.3.2010, passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Vadgaon Maval, in S.T.C.C. No. 1100/2007, the present appellant prefers this memo of appeal on the following amongst the other grounds of objections thereto : 1. That the Learned Lower Court has not followed proper procedure, and this has resulted into miscarriage of justice.  2. That the orders passed by the Learned Lower Court are violative of the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. 3. That the  orders  passed by the Learned Lower Court are contrary to the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. 4. That the Learned Lower Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in a judicious manner. 5. That the findings arrived at by the Learned Lower Court are not supported by the evidence on record. 6. That the necessary issues of law and the facts have not been framed and answered by the Learned Lower Court, 7. That the Learned Trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused-appellant for the benefit of doubt for the great many controversies committed in the evidence adduced by almost all the prosecution witnesses. 8. That the  Hon'ble  Lower Court ought to  have  taken  into account the very fact that there was a glaring mistake on the part of the prosecution to the effect that when the  said accident actually took place on 17.6.1998, in the Final Report/ Charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, Dehu Road Police Station,  on  18.8.2007, the date of offence is shown to be 10.6.2007, which is totally incorrect. 9. That the Hon'ble Lower Court ought to have rightly held that it was, merely an accident, and not an offence. 10. That there was a great mistake in lodging the FIR on 8.8.2007, which should give the benefit of doubt for acquittal of the accused. 11. That the appellant respectfully submits that while framing charge, on 7.4.2001, the date of the offence is shown to be 10.6.2007. 12. That the Hon'ble Lower Court ought to have held that the evidence given by the PW No. 5, Shri MKK, who had undertaken the work of construction as a contractor, to the effect that the said water tank was covered by wooden planks and tin sheets, and as admitted by the PW No. 3, Shri GVJ, that theft is a common instance in the area, and hence, the same must have been  stolen away by the thieves,  leaving the water tank unprotected. 13. That it was not correct and proper on the part of the Learned Lower Court to conclude that the said water tank was uncovered, because the PW No. 3, Shri GVJ, the PW No. 5, the concerned contractor, as well as the PW No. 8, Shri DDK, supported, said and reiterated that the three sides of the tank were closed by a wall and protected by a wire fencing,-there was no access to the construction site, and the said witness, Shri Kale, also added that the accused never visited the construction site during the work, and that the plot is fenced by wire fencing. 14. That the Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that registering an offence against the accused-appellant was an afterthought, for, as per the version of the PW No. 7, Shri MHC, ASI, who admitted that prior to the FIR, the incident was registered as an accidental death. That the  Hon'ble Trial  Court  ought to  have  taken  into 15. consideration that when the PW No. 6, Shri GRM, says that the incident took place on 8.8.2007, it means that such a mistake on the part of the prosecution could be accepted only with a view to giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, and not otherwise. 16. That the Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have considered that the prosecution failed to prove any offence on the part of the appellant. 17. That the Hon'ble Lower Court ought to have considered that the appellant was not responsible for the death of the deceased boy - Salman, who was found drowned in the water tank which was constructed by the contractor engaged by the appellant for the purpose of construction of a house for him. 18. That the Hon'ble Lower Court ought to have held that the drowning of the deceased boy was caused only on account of an accident for which the appellant was not at all responsible.  19. That the Hon'ble Trial Court was at an error in holding that the said offence was committed by the appellant by a rash and negligent act on his part. 20. That the Learned Lower Court was wrong to have come to a tacit conclusion that it was due to a rash and negligent act on the part of the appellant that the death of the deceased boy was caused. 21. That the Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have held that there was neither mens rea on the part of the appellant to cause death nor any knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. 22. That the Hon'ble Lower Court ought to have considered that the appellant did no act, which could be termed as a rash or negligent act and is directly the immediate cause of death of the deceased boy. 23. That the Hon'ble Trial Court also ought to have held that there was, in fact, no criminal intent on the part of the appellant, which was an essential ingredient to constitute an offence. 24. That the appellant respectfully submits for the kind and sympathetic consideration of this Hon'ble Court that there was no rash or negligent act on the part of the accused-appellant which could have been the direct or proximate cause of the death of the deceased boy. 25. That  the  accused-appellant respectfully  submits  for the favourable consideration of this Hon'ble Court that the Learned Lower Court ought to have determined that the accused cannot be held to have the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause the actual result, but the appellant has been so unhappy that the dangerous consequences have been unfortunate. 26. That the Learned Trial Court ought to have held that the act of the accused-appellant in its nature is not at all criminal, and hence, only on that merit, the accused-appellant deserves a clear exoneration. 27. That the Hon'ble Lower Court ought to have rightly held that the section under which the accused-appellant was tried for the offence does not apply to the instant case where the death has arisen, not from the negligent or rash mode of doing the act, but from some result supervening upon the act which could not have been anticipated. 28. That this appellant fervently submits that proper care and due precaution to guard against an injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular was taken by the appellant by putting wooden planks  and  tin  sheets for covering the water tank, which was then dry and empty. 29. That this appellant submits that the said water tank was empty and dry, for the construction work was already stopped for want of funds as well as on account of shortage of water supply in the month of May 2007, that is the beginning of the summer season. 30. That the appellant submits and brings to the kind perusal and consideration of this Hon'ble Court the very fact that when the rainy season started only in the first week of June 2007, the said empty and dried tank was filled in with rainy water, and by the time, all the wooden planks covering the said tank were also found already removed away and stolen by the unknown persons, because the same could be very useful as firewood which is normally used by the population residing in the nearby vicinity. 31. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have decided that the accused -appellant had taken a sufficient precaution to prevent any untoward happening. 32. That  the  Hon'ble  Lower  Court  ought  to  have  taken  into consideration the very provision of law that there must be mens rea in the criminal negligence also, and since the same is absent in the instant case,  it cannot be termed as an offence. 33. That  the  appellant  respectfully  submits  for  sympathetic consideration of this Hon'ble Court that the circumstances under which the deceased boy was drowned were beyond the control of the appellant, and hence, he is not guilty of such an offence. 34. That there was a factual mistake to say that the said tank in which the deceased boy was drowned was uncovered and unprotected, for it is admitted by the witnesses that the said tank was under a stare case. 35. That the Learned Lower Court was wrong to hold that the P.W. No.l, Shri GSD, who is the father of the deceased boy, was present when the dead body was taken out. 36. That it was a totally wrong decision of the Learned Lower Court that the said water tank was uncovered and unprotected and also that even the construction site was accessible and was not fenced. 37. That the Hon'ble Trial Court erred in arriving at a tacit conclusion that it was an illegal omission on the part of the accused. 38. That even though the said accident took place between 16.30 hours and 20.30 hours on 17.6.2007, the panchnama was drawn two days thereafter on  19.6.2007,  and hence, the Hon'ble Trial Court must have considered this issue in favour of the accused. 39. That the appellant fervently submits that he deserves kind and sympathetic consideration, and accordingly he prays for the mercy of this Hon'ble Court, at least, on humanitarian grounds. 40. That the order is dated, 7.3.2010, while its certified copy was applied for and delivered the same day, and hence, the appeal filed today is well within limitation. 41. That certified copies of the judgment and order, dated 7.3.2010. in S.T.C.C. No.  1100/2007, and the other proceedings are filed herewith. 42. That the necessary court fee is paid herewith.  43. That the appellant, therefore, prays that - (i) For the reasons stated above and as may be argued at the time of hearing, this appeal may kindly be allowed;  (ii) The record and proceedings in S.T.C.C. No. 1100/2007 in the court of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadgaon Maval, be called for;  (iii) The order under appeal be set aside and quashed, and orders deemed just and proper be kindly passed; (iv)The appellant be kindly acquitted from the offence punishable u/s 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code 1860;