PARTHA SHARATHI BAIDYA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr. PC), the order dated 16-7-2011 as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Revision No. 21(3) of 2010, whereby the challenge as projected against the order for framing of charge against the petitioners was shot down.

(2.) The prosecution against the petitioners herein was launched at the instance of one Kshirmohan Debnath who filed an ejahar to the Officer-in-charge, East Agartala Police Station, alleging amongst other things that the petitioners and their relative, one Sajal Sarkar fell down and had stolen away two Gamai trees from his land. The land from where those two trees were allegedly taken away was in the occupation of the informant and was duly parted by the original owner. Thereafter, the petitioners and that Sajal Sarkar kept the said trees in the house of one Swapan Ghosh of the locality. The informant also suspected involvement of that Swapan Ghosh in the alleged incident of theft. The informant assessed the value of the trees at Rs. 10,000/- approximately. On the basis of the said ejahar dated 28-7-2008, East Agartala PS. Case No. 115/08, under Sections 379 of IPC was registered. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on having a prima facie case against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer, who filed the charge-sheet, stated in the brief fact of the case that in course of investigation the previous IO also issued a letter to the Forest Range Officer, Sadar, to furnish the details regarding some wooden logs which were seized from Baldakhal, the place of occurrence of the case. The Forest Range Officer intimated that as no claimant appeared before them, the Forest Department confiscated the same. The previous I.O. also examined and recorded the statement of the Forest Range Officer. The charge-sheet was filed vide East Agartala PS. C/S. No. 32/2009, dated 7-3-2009 under Section 379 of IPC against the present petitioners by the Investigating Officer who completed the further investigation. The other accused person was not sent up for trial as no materials were available against him during the investigation. On taking cognizance, the case was taken up for framing of charge. On 30-3-2010, the said Judicial Magistrate took up the matter for hearing on framing of the charge. In the hearing, learned defence counsel raised a question that the informant was not the owner of the land at the relevant point of time and no possession was taken by the informant from the original land owner. He further submitted that there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. The Judicial Magistrate discarded the said contention holding that there is no legal requirement that only the registered owner can lodge the ejahar unless the alleged offence is covered by the provisions of Sections 195 to 199 of Cr. PC. Relevant part of the observations of the Judicial Magistrate is excerpted hereunder :

(3.) Being aggrieved by that order dated 30-3-2010 as passed in G.R. No. 614/2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the Criminal Revision was filed in the Court of the Sessions, West Tripura, Agartala, being Criminal Revision No. 21(3)/2010 and the said Criminal Revision was disposed of by the impugned order dated 16-7-2011, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, has recorded his reasonings as under: