SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5th December, 2007 by virtue of which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has directed the framing of charges against the petitioner under Section 411/473/34 ipc.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case, as given in the impugned order are that one Mr. Deepak Verma had lodged a complaint on 6th March, 2007 at about 11. 15 p. m. stating that he had received a telephonic call from his driver named ram Bahadur who had gone to drop his mother at a function and then to pick her up but he did not reach the place from where he was supposed to pick her up. On enquiry it had transpired that the driver Ram Bahadur intimated that he had gone to Karampura Terminal for easing himself and it was at that point of time the car was stolen when it was parked. The complainant reached the spot and found the driver Ram Bahadur to be in a drunken condition and incoherent and consequently he was booked for having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust for which an FIR No. 148/2007 under Section 408 IPC was registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi. During the course of trial, the driver Ram Bahadur pleaded guilty to the offence under Section 408 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took a lenient view and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY thereto another FIR No. 552/2007 under Section 20 of the NDPS act and under Sections 411 and 420 of IPC was registered at P. S. Punjabi Bagh, new Delhi against the present petitioner Sunil Kumar who is purported to have made a disclosure statement that he was having Honda City car in respect of which Ram Bahadur had committed an offence of breach of trust. The accused sunil Kumar is purported to have made a disclosure statement and in pursuance to the same, he got the Honda City Car recovered from Desh Raj and this is how both Desh Raj and Sunil Kumar were alleged to be prima facie of having committed an offence under Section 411/473/34 IPC by the learned Metropolitan magistrate by the impugned order and directed framing of charge. The offence under Section 411 IPC was on account of having been found in possession of the stolen property while as the offence under Section 473 was directed to be framed on account of the fact that the vehicle number of the car in question was found to be changed. The learned magistrate after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner directed the framing of charges against the petitioner for these two offences by invoking section 34 IPC.