SADHA SINGH Vs. BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Code) are that Sadha Singh had filed a criminal complaint under sections 447, 379, 427 and 506 all read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samrala, against the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the accused). Respondent No. 5 is the State of Punjab. In the complaint it was alleged that the complainant had purchase a piece of land situated in village Rahon for the construction of a warehouse. He had installed a hand-pump at the cost of Rs. 1200/- and has spent Rs. 1500/- on the construction of a kotha. On the night of 12th July, 1981, the accused demolished the hand-pump and the kotha and took away the material of the hand-pump as well as the bricks After recording preliminary evidence the learned Magistrate found that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused under sections 447 and 379 both read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were summoned accordingly. Some precharge evidence was recorded. On 5th October. 1982, the complainant was absent. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution and discharged the accused.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved the complainant filed revision petition which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. He dismissed the same on the ground that there was no evidence to hold that the stolen property was worth more than Rs. 250/- Thus according to him, as the offences were compoundable, the order of learned Magistrate was correct. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th October, 1982 passed by the trial Court.

(3.) THE order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was produced before me for perusal. That order shows that during the pre-charge evidence the complainant had appeared in the witness box and had produced one cash memo which was marked W and it showed that the value of some of the material used for setting up the handpump was Rs. 850/-. That receipt was not exhibited but it was only marked perhaps on the ground that it was not properly proved. As noticed earlier, the petitioner's allegation is also to the effect that the accused had removed the bricks of the Kotha on the construction of which he had spent Rs. 1500/- Thus if the prima facie allegations of the complainant are taken as correct then the value of the stolen property would come to much more than Rs. 250/-.