JEETARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by one Jeetaram. He was convicted by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Pali, on his plea of guilty on three counts namely, under secs. 420. 465 and 468 IPC. He was awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count and a fine of Rs 100 in addition for the offence under 468 I. P. C in default one month's further rigorous imprisonment. All the three substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He appealed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Pali against his conviction and sentences, but without success.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that the accused had approached the complainant Hastimal Kothari of Pali on 22170 with a lottery ticket bearing No. B-155027 of the State Lottery of Jammu & Kashmir and told him that in the third draw of the State Lottery on 11. 1. 70, the second prize of rupees one lac had been declared on the aforesaid ticket. THE accused requested Hastimal to advance him a loan of Rs. 5000 on the security of the ticket in question. THEre was then a talk about the collection of the amount of rupees one lac from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. It was suggested by the accused that a duly authorised person be sent to Srinagar for collecting the amount and out of the amount when collected the expenses of going to Srinagar as also the amount of the loan be recovered by Hastimal. Hastimal's nephew Shri Lalchand was an Advocate at Pali and it was decided that Shri Lalchand and one Khema who enjoyed the confidence of the accused should proceed to Srinagar for the purpose of collection. Hastimal had handed over the ticket together with the newspaper cutting showing the declaration of the result of the draw in an envelope and on the outer side of the envelope the accused acknowledged the receipt of Rs 5000. A power of attorney in favour of Lalchand was also given by the accused. Shri Lalchand and Khema then went to Srinagar and there contacted the Director of State Lotteries. THEy produced the ticket after filling in a certain form of declaration. As the Director had already received a ticket bearing the same number, he suspected the genuineness of the ticket produced by Shri Lalchand. Eventually the Director of Lotteries reported the matter with the Kashmir police and a case was registered against Lalchand and Khema. On coming to know of what had been done to himself and his nephew by the accused, Hastimal lodged a complaint in the court of the learned Munsif Magistrate who forwarded the so called complaint u/s. 156 Cr. P. C. to the police for investigations. THE police then registered a case under secs. 520, 465 and 568 I. P. C. against the accused and investigated the matter. On 3 4. 70, the challan was put up against the accused. THE statement of the accused was recorded under sec. 251-A (3) Cr. P. C. and then the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused for all the three counts to which the accused pleaded guilty and the learned Magistrate accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. THE learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal observed thus in his judgment - "before parting with the judgment, I cannot help mentioning certain facts which speak themselves and emit some foul odour coming out from the investigation. THE complaint was lodged, say after two months of the occurrence. During this period, no action was taken by the complainant. THE alleged forged ticket is said to have been presented before authority of the State Lottery department of Jammu & Kashmir. Who had produced that ticket there and under what circumstances and what was its condition, a thorough investigation needed to have been made by the police. From the perusal of the case diary which, I sent for, I find no steps were taken in this connection. THE P. S. I. put an endorsement intimating the investigating agency that the document in question i. e. the ticket has not been recovered and no expert opinion has been obtained. Having put these objections, he submitted challan with a note that as the accused is ready to plead guilty according to the I. O. , the case be put up. In my view, in an important case like this, proper investigation has not been made, For reasons best known to the prosecuting agency, the challan was put up in a haphazardly manner. In my opinion, it requires serious probing in the matter. A copy of the judgment be sent to the District Magistrate, Pali for such action as he may deem proper. "