GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common points of law and facts are involved, both the petitions are being disposed of vide common order. The relevant facts giving rise to both the petitions are that the petitioner Sh. Gopal Singh submitted a written report at Police Station Jamwa Ramgarh on 27. 10. 1995 against the respondent No. 2 Gulla Ram with the averments that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 Gulla Ram had purchased a tractor No. RJ. 14 R. 3952 after obtaining loan from the Cooperative land Development Bank Ltd. Jaipur. Subsequently, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 entered into a written agreement, whereby the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 26,000/- to the respondent No. 2 and further undertook to repay the loan of the bank and retained the custody of the tractor, thereafter on 27. 10. 1995 the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was going to Jaipur by this tractor. On they way, 4-5 persons including respondent No. 2 Gulla Ram having lathis came in front of the tractor, started abusing the petitioner and took away his tractor and the amount of Rs. 20,000/ -.

(2.) FIRST Information Report No. 320/1995 under Section 379 IPC was registered. After investigation final report was submitted on the ground that it seems to be a dispute of civil nature and no such incident took place.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions, and find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 6. 10. 2001 passed in criminal appeal. The claim of the petitioner was based upon the agreement and form No. 30 which were executed and signed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner according to the case of petitioner. But this agreement and the from No. 30 according to FSL report did not bear the signatures of the respondent No. 2 Sh. Gulla Ram and thus a charge sheet under Section 420, 406, 467, 471 I. P. C. came to be filed against the accused petitioner Sh. Gopal Singh for making false signatures of the respondent No. 2 Sh Gulla ram and that criminal case is still pending trial. Apart from this the learned Appellate Judge rightly observed that the Magistrate should have passed the order for Superdigi of this tractor under Section 452 Cr. P. C. as the final report had already been submitted that that was accepted by the Trial Magistrate. therefore, this revision petition has also got no merit. Consequently, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. .