Jeet Ram vs Gangaram and Another

S.S. Byas, J.—This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procadure for quashing the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial, Magistrate, Churu dated December 20, 1980 by which the accused-non petitioner was discharged from the offences Under Sections 379 and 411, IPC.

The relevant facts are that Jeetram, the petitioner before me submitted a report in writing before the Station House Officer, Dudhwakhara District Churu on 6 9.1980 that his three sheep were missing and he had come to know that they were in possession of accused Gangaram (non-petitioner No. 1). The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The accused was arrested and in consequence of the information furnished by him, one of the stolen sheep was recovered. After when the investigation was over, the police submitted a challan against the accused Under Sections 379 and 411 IPC in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu on 30.9.1980. The learned Magistrate heard the arguments on 20.12.80, whether the charges should on should not be framed against the accused. During arguments, the accused contended that he had purchased the stolen sheep from Gram Panchayat, Hadiyal and showed a receipt of the Gram Panchayat, Hadiyal in support of his contention. The contention found favour with the learned Magistrate. The accused was consequently discharged. Jeetram went in revision before the learned Session Judge, Churu. It was contended before the learned Judge that the receipt was never produced by the accused during investigation nor it was produced at the earliest stage before the Magistrate. The prosecution had no occasion to show whether the receipt was genuine or forged. The learned Sessions judge negative the contention and upheld the order of the Magistrate. Hence this application.

1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the Public Prosecutor. 1 have also gone through the case file carefully.

It was vehemently contended before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the whole approach of both the courts-below was erroneous. The prosecution was afforded no opportunity to show that the receipt was a forged one. It was also wrongly observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the receipt was produced by the accused during investigation. Moreover, the receipt purported to be in the name of one Moharsingh. There is no material to show that Moharsingh in whose favour, the receipt has been issued is the son of the accused. In reply the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that there are no good grounds to interfere in the impugned order under the inherent powers vested in this Court under Sic. 482, Cr.P.G. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration.

It can be said without hesitation that the receipt was not produced by the accused during investigation. The learned Sessions Judge was, there fore, in error when he held that the receipt was produced during investigation. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that the receipt was issued in favour of accused Gangaram. It is again wrong because the receip is said to have been issued in favour of one Moharsingh, who is said to be a son of the accused. These errors show that the learned Sessions Judge had not paid proper attention to the contentions raised before him.

Admittedly, the receipt was not produced by the accused during investigation. It was also not produced in the court when the challan was submitted or when the case was adjuourned twice. It was only on 20.12.80 that the accused showed the receipt to the learned Magistrate. The prosecution had no occasion to show, whether the receipt was genuine or forged. The accused was discharged solely on the ground of this receipt, but as the prosecution had no opportunity to put its case in respect of the receipt, the order of the learned Magistrate can not be upheld. The prosecution was taken by surprise when all of a sudden, when the receipt was shown in the court on 20.12.80 at the time of arguments. The order of the learned Magistrate is, thus, invalid and illegal. In order to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to interfere with the impugned order of discharge.

In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu dated December 20, 1980 is set aside. The case is sent back to him with a direction to make further enquiry into the case, keeping in view, the observations made above.