SAMPAT RAM Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAMPAT Ram filed a complaint against Rameshwar Dass for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. on the allegations that Tehsildar Sirsa handed over a 'Dhalbach' to him for effecting recovery of a Abiana for Khariff, 1979 and land tax as well as mutation-fee for Khariff, 1980. He deposited the amount in advance in State Bank of India vide challan dated 15.1.1981. Rameshwar Dass, who was a Lambardar of Patti Dallu recovered a sum of Rs. 2682.67 on account of mutation fee, land tax and Abiana on the pretext that 'Dhalbach' with regard to the same was delivered to him and he was authorised to effect that recovery. In fact he knew that he was not entitled to recover the amount as the same was already deposited in advance by the complainant and in this way he cheated the complainant. He examined some witnesses to prove that amount was recovered by Rameshwar Dass Lambardar. After perusing the evidence Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa, summoned Rameshwar Dass to stand trial for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. vide order dated 8.4.1985.

(2.) RAMESHWAR Dass field a revision petition against the order vide which he was summoned and his revision petition was accepted and the impugned order dated 8.4.1985 was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 19.9.1985. Against this order Sampat Ram complainant has filed the present revision.

(3.) IT was urged on behalf of the revision-petition that 'Dhalbach' for the recovery of the amount was given by Tehsildar to the petitioner and the respondent had recovered the amount without any authority. The petitioner had already deposited the amount in advance, in the State Bank of India and recovery in these circumstances amounted to a deception played on the petitioner. This contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. The respondent was also a Lambardar of Patti Dallu and he was under the impression that he was to recover the amount from various persons. Even the allegations in the complaint if taken to be correct did not disclose the ingredients of any offence under Section 420 I.P.C. There was nothing to suggest that 'Dhalbach' for the amount in question was never handed over to the respondent and he was not authorised to recover the amount. Moreover, he too had deposited the amount in the treasury and had not retained the same with him. It was not disclosed as to how any deception was played on the petitioner as a result of which he delivered any property to the respondent. The respondent was never informed that 'Dhalbach' was with the petitioner and he had deposited the amount in advance. The learned Additional Sessions-Judge after considering all the aspects of the case found that no case for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was made out against the respondent. The impugned order is quite legal and valid and admits of no interference by way of this revision petition. The revision petition is benefit of any merit and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.