BABU LAL Vs. TILAK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though the revision has been on my board none appeared. This revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hated 3rd of January 1980 by which he dismissed a challan and discharged the respondents. 18 persons were prosecuted for offences under sections 366/368/380/411/109 Indian Penal Code . The learned. Additional Sessions Judge by an elaborate order examined the prosecution case and found that it was not a fit case for charge.

(2.) Under section 227 Cr.P.C. if, upon re-consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Reverse of the same is provided under section 228 Cr. P C. and the ratio of section 228 is that if the judge is of the opinion on consideration of the record, documents and arguments that there is ground for proceeding that the accused has committed an offence he shall frame the charge.

(3.) Now in the persent case, the facts are that one Sarla Devi who had strained relations with her husband and was residing with her parents is stated to have been a bducted by Tilak Kumar and Surinder son of Yad Ram from the house of her parents together with some gold ornaments and cash which, according to the prosecution, was stolen from the house of the complainant. This happened on 17th May 1984 and on the same day a report was lodged. There is no dispute that Sarla Devi on the date of the incident was a major. It appears that the prosecution case in brief is that she had been asked by Surinder, his mother and uncle to get all her clothes and ornaments earlier to the date of the incident so that her marriage is performed with Surinder but she declined to do so. On the date of the incident it is alleged that a child was sent to her asking her that Surinder wanted her to come with her luggage. The thereafter threw her belongings including gold ornaments etc. from the balcony and on the asking of Surinder she joined him. At that time Tilak respondent was also accompanying Surinder who saw them off at the bus stand and thereafter they went to different places where the accused persona are stated to have abetted the commission of the offence in different ways.