BUTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. PC against the judgment dated July 2, 1979 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar whereby he upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in case No. 35 of 1975.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a report was lodged by Shri Hakikat Rai Overseer (PW 6) at Police Station Sri Ganganagar on November 1, 1974 against Shri Palasingh Angrej Singh and Butasingh. It was alleged in the report that in the intervening night of October 31, and November 1, 1974 he was informed that the Government bricks which were lying by the side of Bhagsar minor are being stolen and the bricks are taken by a tractor. On receiving this information PW 6 went on the spot and found that about 1500 to 2000 bricks being stolen. PW 6 Shri Hakikatrai along with other persons followed the traces of tyres of the tractor and while following they found two bricks lying near the village Variam Kheda. Ultimately they reached near the Dhani of Palasingh where tractor No. PNO 5901 was found and its trolly was loaded with bricks. On that day i.e. 1 -11 -74 accused -petitioners were also standing by the side of the tractor and it was asked from them that who brought these bricks. On this the accused -petitioner admitted the guilt while saying that they have brought the bricks. On this the said report was lodged at the Police Station and a case under Section 379 IPC was registered and investigation was started. After completing the investigation a challan was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Sri Ganganagar against the accused -petitioners as well as against Shri Angrejsingh who is said to have been the owner of the tractor. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Sri Ganganagar by his order dated March 3, 1975 discharged accused Angrejsingh and after completion of the trial convicted the accused -petitioner and sentenced them for three months' rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by this order of conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal but without any success. Hence this revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions: