STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAMDEVIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON February 13, 1970, the Prosecuting Sub -Inspector, Sikar, submitted a complaint under Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code, to the court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sikar. The complaint averred that Head Constable Hanuman Singh and Foot Constable Onar Singh spotted one person, Ramdevla Meena, who was hiding himself under suspicious circumstances behind a wooden shop near Chandpole Gate Bus Stand. On his having been questioned, he tried to run away. He was, however, apprehended with the help of one Dalai Jat. On inquiry he first mentioned his name as Rawtia Chejara of Sikar. He further told the police that he was returning home after seeing a cinema show and that he sat behind the wood in shop for urinating. Consequently it was found that that person was Ramdevla Meena. At the time of the arrest a bunch of keys was recovered from his possession. Ramdevia was arrested by the police on suspicion that there was every likelihood of the commission of a cognizable offence by him. At the fag end of the complaint it was prayed that necessary proceedings against Ramdevla under Section 109, Cr. P.C., be taken. On receipt of the complaint, a notice was issued by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sikar, to non -applicant in accordance with the provisions of Section 112, Cr. P C. Ramdevla denied the charge. He stated that he was apprehended by the police from the house of Girdharilal, his cousin brother, where he was having his dinner. Girdharilal also filed an affidavit, supporting Ramdevla's plea. Girdharilal further mentioned in the affidavit that Ramdevla had never committed any theft and that he earned his livelihood through manual labour. On the basis of the denial by the non -applicant and the affidavit filed by Girdharilal, the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, did not deem it necessary to proceed further with the case and dropped the proceedings, initiated under Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) A revision application was taken against the above order in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. The learned Judge observed in his order of reference that it was the duty of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate to fully inquire into the matter and try the case as laid down in Section 117, Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions under Section 117, the learned Judge adds, are mandatory and, therefore, the order to drop proceedings under Section 109, Cr. P.C., passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sikar, is liable to be set aside. It is in this context that the present reference has been submitted, recommending that the impugned order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sikar, dated February 13, 1970, should be quashed.

(3.) IN support of the above proposition, reliance is placed on an analogous case reported as Sheokaran v. . The relevant observations are quoted below: