SHANTI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by the second respondent- Smt. Geeta Devi and set aside the order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda accepting the Final Report and rejecting the protest petition, for taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 380 I.P.C.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that second respondent herein Smt. Geeta Devi lodged a report at the Police Station, Gogunda stating that she was employed in Rajeev Seva Samiti for last more than ten years. The Samiti purchased a house in January, 1993 from one Nathulal. As the cheque of Rs. 50,000/- was not encashed accused-petitioner-Shantilal asked her for advancing the loan. Shantilal mortgaged his house to her. A document was executed in that regard. It is alleged that while she had gone out, petitioner-Shantilal committed theft of stamp paper and currency notes of Rs. 2,000/-. After investigation, police forwarded a negative report. The second respondent-Geeta Devi objected the Final Report by way of protest petition. The Trial Court found the story of dishonour of cheque and advancement of loan improbable. The Trial Court was also of the view that in absence of recovery of stamp paper, the accused-petitioner cannot be put to trial for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. The said order was challenged by way of revision petition considering the evidence of Smt. Geeta Devi to the effect that she had seen accused-Shantilal taking out stamp paper from her box, the Revisional Court expressed that there was sufficient evidence to put the accused to trial.

(3.) I have considered the material on record. Mst. Geeta Devi herself has stated in the FIR that while she was out of station , the theft of "document of mortgage", was committed. If she had seen the accused-Shantilal committing theft, she would have immediately reported the matter. The document has not been recovered during investigation. In absence of such a material document, no useful purpose is going to be served by putting the accused-Shantilal to trial for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. The learned revisional Court has committed error in interfering with the just and legal order passed by the learned Trial Court.