ASMAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants by the instant petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Code') have impugned the order dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure A-6) passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, Bastar in Criminal Revision No. 52/2003 whereby the Revisional Court has re- jected the revision preferred by the applicants herein against the order dated 24.3.2003 (Annexure P-5) passed in Criminal Case No. 621 / 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kondagaon, Bastar.

(2.) Briefly stated facts are that the charge sheet has been filed under section 188 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kondagaon on 4.8.1998 on the basis of which charges were framed on 9.8.1999. The prosecution has closed its case after examining its witnesses and the matter was fixed for recording of statement of the accused persons on 10.12.2002. However, an application under section 216 of the Code was filed by the District Prosecution Officer for addition of charge under section 379 of I.P.C. and the Trial Court vide order dated 4.3.2003 allowed the said application and framed the charge under section 379 of I.P.C. Revisions preferred by the applicants against the framing of above charge was also rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that in the instant case, the charge-sheet was filed against the applicants under section 188/34 of the I.P.C. for the offence allegedly committed on 26.12.1997, however, the Trial Court has taken the cognizance of offence punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. on 24.3.2003 while deciding the application of the prosecution under section 216 of the Code, which is admittedly filed beyond the period of three years and as such, barred under section 468 (2) (c) of the Code. It was further argued that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the offence of theft, as defined under section 378 of the I.P.C., as there is no allegation in the charge sheet that the applicants moved the movable property out of the possession of the complainant with an intention to take the same dishonestly. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the matter of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 2372 , Srinivas Pal Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (Now State), AIR 1988 SC 1929 , Superintendent, T. Choithram Hospital and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, 1998 Cr LR (MP) 362 and Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SCW 4998 .