ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A licence issued by Labour Department to shop-keeper cannot be said to be valuable security as defined under Section 30 of I.P.C. N.N. Mathur, J.-I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and. perused the order dated 14.8.2001 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST.(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner-Sint. Anita was married to Ashok Kumar in November, 1987. She was being ill-treated in her in-laws house and ultimately, turned out in the year 1991. She filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Udaipur which was decreed on 25.11.1995. In execution, the articles lying in the shop of her husband namely M/s. Surendra Saree Centre were attached. Ashok Kumar produced a licence showing Ratan Lal as the proprietor of the shop. Subsequently, it revealed that a false licence was produced by Vinod Kumar, a Clerk and Praveen Kumar, a Inspector in the Shop and Commercial Establishment of Labour Department in conspriacy with accused-Ashok Kumar and Ratan Lal. The certificate was of the year 1984, whereas, Praveen Kumar entered in the services in the year 1993. On these facts, petitioner-Anita filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur. The complaint was sent for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, police laid charge-sheet against all the four accused persons for offence under sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner-complainant filed an application for adding offence under Section 467 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the complainant by order dated 19.1.1998. By the same order, learned Magistrate also discharged the accused -Praveen Kumar of offence under sections 467, 468, 420 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Eventually, the matter was heard by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases. The Special Judge by order dated 20.2.1999 confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate so far as it relates to framing of additional charge for offence under Section 467 I.P.C. He, however, allowed the revision petition to the extent of discharging the accused-Praveen Kumar. The learned Judge directed to proceed with Praveen Kumar alongwith other accused persons for offence under sections 468, 420 and 120-B IPC. The matter was carried to this Court by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the instance of Praveen Kumar. This Court by order dated 21.9.1999 allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Court of Special Judge for fresh hearing. This Court was of the view that the revisional Court could not have given straightway direction to the Magistrate to take cognizance for offence under sections 468, 420 and 120-B IPC. On remand, the matter was reheard by the Special Judge. The learned Judge held that as the licence cannot said to be a valuable security, offence under Section 467 I.P.C. is not constituted. The trial Court accordingly, refused to frame charge against Praveen Kumar for offence under Section 467 I.P.C. With respect to the case against accused-Praveen Kumar, he remitted the matter to the trial Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Judge has committed error in holding that the licence is not a valuable security. As such, no charge can be framed against Praveen Kumar for offence under Section 467 I.P.C. In my view, the contention deserves to be rejected. The word "valuable security" as employed in the Section 467 I.P.C. is defined under Section 30 I.P.C. which reads as follows :-