STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BARKATALI GAVARALI DEVRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 9/6/1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.86 of 1997 for the offences under Ss. 452 , 342 , 394 , 397 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 of the B.P. Act., the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents - accused.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as under : 2.1 On 1/6/1995, all three accused made reiki of the shop of complainant - Ashokbhai Ganatra. At about 3:00 p.m., accused No.3 - Sultan made first reiki of the shop, then at about 6:00 p.m., other two accused - accused No.1 - Barkat and accused No.2 - Azim made reiki of the shop. Accused Nos.1 and 2 also made inquiry about the goods - groundnut. Thereafter, at about 7:00 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 again came to the shop of the complainant. They locked the door from inside. They both have knife. They cut the telephone wire and the complainant was strangulated from that wire. They have threatened the complainant. They snatched away one portfolio lying near the complainant, in which there were total Rs.35,600.00. Thereafter, they ran away from the place of occurrence by locking the door from outside. The complainant shouted from inside through window and two labourers were immediately rushed inside by opining the door. They ran behind the accused, however, since the accused were on bicycle, they ran away from there.

(3.) In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the respondents - accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as provided under sec. 209 of the Code.