JANKI PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Budaun, in respect of a case which is going on in the court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Under Sec. 379 of the IPC.

(2.) The case against the Applicant, Janki Pd. and two others, Madan Mohan and Har Sumran, has been started on the basis of a complaint, which has been filed by one Ram Charan Lal Goyal. Ram Charan Lal Goyal was a tube -well operator at tube -well No. 61 and it appears that he was transferred to district Ghazipur and was reluctant to go there. His successor, Har Sumran, appears not to have succeeded in obtaining the charge from Ram Charan Lal. According to the allegations in the complaint the complainant was sent for by Sri Janki Prasad, the Executive Engineer, on the morning of 7 -12 -1965 and asked to sign a certain blank paper which he refused to do and it is alleged that Sri Janki Prasad and the other two accused in the case abused him and beat him with fists and kicks and even threatened to kill him. The complainant somehow managed to escape and went, according to his allegations, to police station Ujhiani and when he returned to tube well No. 61, he found that his lock had been broken open and his personal effects which had been kept there removed by or at the instance of Sri Janki Prasad. It appears that an inventory was prepared in which everything that is said to have been found inside the tube well was noted down, but the complainant's allegation is that among his personal effects was a leather attachee which contained some cash and gold and silver ornaments, a list whereof is given in the complaint. This attachee is alleged to have been removed by Sri Janki Prasad without being entered in the inventory. The complainant, therefore, alleged that the three accused had committed theft and filed the complaint Under Sec. 379 of the IPC.

(3.) The Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and when he was required to produce evidence Under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he examined five witnesses, Bhawani Ram (PW 1), Vir Sahai (PW 2), Hemraj (PVV 3), Majid Ahmad (PW 4) and Hiralal (PW 5). On the basis of this evidence the Magistrate seems to have come to the conclusion that prima facie case was made out and the accused were, therefore, summoned in the case Under Sec. 409 of the IPC under his order dated 24 -2 -1966.