NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated August 6, 1984, by which the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh dated January 29, 1983 passed under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was set -aside and the property (a camel and a cart) was delivered to the complainant Ram Narain.

(2.) BRIEFLY recounted, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the complainant Ram Narain lodged a written report at Police Station, Kotri on December 4, 1983 stating there in that accused Nandlal had taken a cart and a camel from him on rent of Rs. 200/ - per month. The accused kept the cart and camel with him for some time. Thereafter he returned the cart and the camel to the complainant and paid sum of Rs. 650/ - as rent to him somewhere before November 4, 1982. Since then the cart and the camel were in his (complainant's) possession. However, in the evening of December 4, 1982, when the complainant was away from his village, the accused took away his camel and the cart. The accused has, thus, committed the offence of theft. The police registered a case under Section 379, IPC and proceeded with investigation. The camel and the cart were recovered from the possession of the accused. While the investigation was going on, the complainant moved an application purporting to be under Section 451, Cr. PC and prayed that the camel and the cart be temporarily entrusted to him. The prayer was allowed. The camel and the cart were entrusted to the complainant on "Supurdginama." On the completion of investigation, the police arrived at the conclusion that the information lodged by the complainant Ram Narain was wholly false and unfounded. The real facts, according to the police, ware that Ram Narain had sold the camel and the cart to the accused Nandlal for a sum of Rs. 3500. The accused had made a payment of Rs. 650/ - to the complainant. The balance of the price, however, remained unpaid. The complainant concealing the fact of this sale, lodged a false report of theft against the accused. The dispute between the parties was, thus, essentially of civil nature and no case of theft was made out against the accused. The police, therefore, filed a negative final report against the accused stating therein that no offence was made out. The Investigating Officer decided to lodge a complaint under Section 182, IPC against the complainant. When the negative final report was filed in the Court of Muusif and Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, the accused submitted an application under Section 457, Cr. PC with the prayer that the cart and the camel seized from his possession and which were temporarily entrusted to the complainant, be returned to him (accused). This application was resisted by the complainant. The complainant also moved a protest petition before the learned Magistrate and requested that cognizance of the offence under Section 379, IPC be taken against the accused. The learned Magistrate heard the parties and declined the complainant's request to take cognizance of the offence Under Section 379, IPC against the accused and dismissed his protest petition. The learned Magistrate further allowed the application of the accused and passed an order that the cart and the camel be delivered to him. The complainant, being aggrieved by the said orders of the Magistrate, went in revision. The revision petitions were heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. He dismissed the revision against the order of the learned Magistrate by which he refused to take cognizance of the offence. The revision against the order of returning the camel and the cart to the accused was, however, allowed. The order of the Magistrate dated January 29, 1983 was consequently set -aside and directions were issued that the cart and the camel be delivered to the complainant Ram Narain. Dis -satisfied with this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused has come -up in revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case file carefully.