BAWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision and has been directed against the order dated 24.5.1992, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sirsa, who discharged the respondents Jodh Singh and Balwinder Singh in challan case FIR No. 10 dated 7.1.1992 u/s 420/379, IPC, registered in Police Station, Rania.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that a tractor bearing registration No. HRW-9551, Mark Escorts, as per the registration certificate, is admittedly the ownership of Jodh Singh and Balwinder Singh. These registered owners sold the tractor in question to the present petitioner who is the complainant of the FIR for a consideration of Rs. 47,500/-. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was also paid by way of earnest money by the purchaser to the registered owners. In pursuance of the said agreement of sale, Bawa Singh, petitioner, obtained the possession of the tractor and he further deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 19.6.1990 in Primary Land Development Bank in favour of which the tractor was hypothecated. In this manner, a sum of Rs. 33,000/- was paid by the complainant as the liability which was to be paid by the registered owners and the surety. Bawa Singh was supposed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 14,500/-. The ownership of the tractor could not be transferred in favour of Bawa Singh on account of complete balance consideration having not been paid. According to the allegations of the complainant, he spent another sum of Rs. 25,000/- on the tractor in question for effecting necessary repairs. It is alleged by the prosecution that in November, 1991, Jodh Singh and Balwinder Singh respondents, came to the house of the complainant and removed the tractor when the complainant was not present in the house and this act has been done by the respondents 2 and 3 in a dishonest and fraudulent manner. Bawa Singh filed an application on 7.1.1992 before ASI Mohinder Singh regarding this alleged theft and, ultimately, the FIR was registered and both these respondents were arrested and on the completion of the investigation of the case, a challan was sent. At the stage of the charge, the learned Magistrate discharged both the respondents for the reasons contained in paras 6 to 9 of the impugned order dated 24.9.1992 and aggrieved by the said order, the present revision by the complainant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the patent illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate in discharging respondents 2 and 3 as it is established on record that the petitioner was in lawful possession of the tractor under an agreement and respondents 2 and 3 had no right to take away the tractor in the absence of the petitioner. This act on the part of respondents 2 and 3 has been done in a dishonest intention vide which the possession of the tractor has been taken. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, prima facie, the theft as defined u/s 378, IPC, has been made out.