JAMMU MAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sessions. Judge, Jodhpur, after herding two criminal revision petitions No. 58 of 1963 and No. 89 of 1963 has made a single reference recommending that the charms framed under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code artist the accused petitioners Jamrmi Mal, Sita Devi and Mayadevi be quashed and the petitioners accused be ordered to be discharged. One order of reference of that Sessions Judge Is not in order and there should have been two cases for reference to this Court. They have consequently been treated as two references and shall be disposed of by one order.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to reference may briefly be given as follows: On 30710-1962 Kanwalram Sindhi the complainant opposite party lodged a report with the Police Division A, Jodhpur accusing three accused petitioners of an offencs under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations ten the first formation report ware to the following effect:

(3.) ON 24-10-1962 at about 7 P. M. Mayadevi, one of the accused petitioners went to the shop of the complainant and asked the latter to show her necklaces and rings of new designs. She told the complainant that her mother was desirous of getting prepared a necklace and rings of some new designs and she had required some samples for her perusal. She further told the complainant that she would return the jeweler within 10-15 minutes. The complainant showed her necklaces and rings of various designs and the accused-petitioner Maya Devi locaket necklace-Worth about Rs. 650/- and two gold rings, one of the type usually put on by males and the other of the type usually put on by females, of the description given in detail in the first information report. She took away these ornaments stating that if the dsigne were approved by other, her mother would place an order for the preparation of rings and necklaces. The accuse petioner Mayadevi did?t the necklace or the tangs even within half an hour. The outing tenant thereupon went to Jammumal, father of Mayadevi and Informed him of the matter. Jammu Mal took the complainant to his house and finding that his daughter was not there and had gone to Gandhi Dham, conveyed the Information to the complainant. The complainant then went to Marwar Junction in a Jaep In order to get hold of Mst. Mayadevi but did not fine her there In the-train. According to the allegations in the first Information report the complainant then intended to file a comp Wirt with the police on 26th of October, 1962, but Jamaal and some persons at his instate dissuaded him to file the first information report The matter thereafter according to the prosecution, was referred to certain Partchas and they also gave their award but the accused petitioner failed to abide the award, He consequently filed a report with the police.