STATE OF RAJ Vs. RAMDEVLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Chambers - On February 18, 1970, the prosecuting Sub INspector, Sikar, submitted a complaint under sec. 109, Cr. P. C. 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 Chand pole Gate Bus Stand. On his having been questioned, he tried to run away. He was, however, apprehended with the help of one Dalu Singh 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 wooden shop for urinating. Subsequently it was found that that person was Ramdevla Meena. At the time of the arrest a bunch of keys was recovered from his possession. Ramdevla 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 sec. !09 Cr. P. C. be taken. On receipt of the complaint, a notice was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sikar, to the non-applicant in accordance with the provisions of sec. 1 12, 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 u/s. 109 Cr. P. C.

(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 a summons case as laid down in sec. 117 Cr. P. C. The provisions under sec. 117, the learned Judge adds, are mandatory and, therefore, the order to drop proceedings under sec. 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 18 1970, should be quashed.