BHARAT LAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) APPLICANT Bharatlal Sahu whose daughter was to be married sold the agricultural land for about Rs. 1,46,000 and he kept the money in his house, theft was committed. He lodged the report regarding the theft of Rs. 1,45,000/-. Offence was registered. During the investigation it was revealed that his son Parmeshwar had committed theft and after committing the theft he handed over it to various persons including respondent no. 2. Certain recoveries have been made. The applicant filed application for releasing the amount recovered. State alone objected. Even the respondent no. 2 did not raise any objection. Learned Magistrate in its impugned order dt. 6-7-2002 has held that prima facie the amount appears to be that of the applicant but the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer on the ground that the applicant has not mentioned in the F.I.R. the numbers of currency notes which bear. Then the applicant filed a revision again for handing over the amount. Here the State again objected through A.G.R Not only that, the counsel for respondent no. 2 also objected. The revisional court in para 7 also reiterated the same by observing that the trial court in its order has rightly held that the applicant did not give the numbers of currency notes in the FIR. Thereafter, this revision has been filed.

(3.) SO far as the Supurdnama is concerned, the matter is simple. The applicant had sold the property and he got the amount for the marriage of his daughter. The amount is alleged to have been stolen by his son who kept it in different places. The objection made by the prosecution and the observation made by the Courts below in that respect that numbers of the notes have not been mentioned in the F.I.R., prima facie appear to be unnatural and impracticable in the facts and circumstances of the case, because normally persons do not note down the numbers. It is a currency and changes hand to hand. Even otherwise, one does not know as to whether it will be lost in theft and he will be required to make a report. The approach adopted does not appear to be practicable and if such observations are allowed to remain in the order, it may prej udice the trial. They are accordingly expunged.