NAROTAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Jaswant Singh son of Sewa Singh partner of Deep Bus Service, Moga had purchased bus No. PEM 1981. He entered into a hire purchase agreement with Moga Transport Company Private Limited. The payment is alleged to have been made. On 21.10.1988 at 4.30 p.m., Jaswant Singh as driver and Bharpoor Singh as conductor of the said bus were going from Moga to Kotkapura. When they reached on the Moga bye-pass, Surjit Singh with his bus blocked the road. On Maruti Gypsy bearing number PAR 9433 was standing there. Jagdish Chander, Narotam Lal and four others were also present there. Narotam Lal was armed with a double barrel gun. He came in front of the bus. Jagdish Chander and Narotam Lal dragged Jaswant Singh from the bust at gun point while others brought Bharpoor Singh out of the bus. They threatened that in case any noise is made, they would be put to death. As a result of this threat the passengers slipped away from the bus. Gurdev Singh son of Hazura Singh and Sukhdev Singh son of Mehnga Singh who were also in the bus tried to intervene. Petitioners Narotam Lal and others pointed their guns towards them and threatened them to go away. They took away the bus from the custody of Jaswant Singh. Jaswant Singh made a statement to the police on the basis of which formal first information report pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 382, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered. The bus in question was taken into possession while it was parked in front of the house of Jagdish Puri.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jagdish Puri is alleged to have filed an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to place on record the affidavit of Jaswant Singh. Jaswant Singh even appeared in the court and admitted the execution of the said affidavit. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 8.4.1991 held that only offence punishable under Section 506 Indian Penal Code was made out and because of the compromise between the parties, the petitioners were discharged and charge was not framed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same the present revision petition has been filed.