PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Criminal Case No. 9/82 State v. Pratap Singh and others pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges under S. 420, I.P.C. against the accused Gyandutt s/o. Shri Ram Swaroop Zha and Pratap Singh s/o. Shri Hari Ram Panwar. The charges were read over and explained, and plea of the accused was recorded on 8-1-87. The accused, thereafter, filed a Revision Petition in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali. The Revision Petition was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali by his order 23-4-92 on the ground that there was sufficient ground for framing the charge against the accused petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Sessions Judge, Bali, the accused persons have filed this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. on the ground that there are grounds to justify the framing of charge against them and prayed that the charge as well as subsequent proceedings be quashed under S. 482, Cr. P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this petition. I have gone through the order dated 23-4-92 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bali, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali has in detail discussed the evidence collected by the Police during the investigation. The facts mentioned in the order are to the effect that on 6-12-81 one Bhanwarlal submitted a report in which he alleged that two persons who were personating themselves as Shri Panwar and Shri Sharma and who visited Falna on several occasions since 13-11-81 were contacting persons and collecting amounts from them by making mis-representations to the effect that they had been authorized by the Government to collect subscriptions for the sake of National Unity. It was also stated in the FIR that subscriptions were collected from some persons in the name of change of religion while from others subscriptions were collected by posing as an Officer of the Reserve Bank of India. According to FIR the amount collected was more than Rs. 3,000 and it was collected from 16 Institutions and the culprits were staying in Room No. 20 of the Bholeshwar Dharamshala and that on being interrogated they admitted that they committed mistake by collecting money. On the basis of the FIR investigation was started. During investigation receipts issued by the petitioners were collected on those receipts the words were printed. At the time of arrest of petitioner Shri Gyandutt and Shri Pratap Singh, receipt books were recovered. During investigation Bhanwarlal, Omprakash, Dilip Singh, Arun Choudhary, Deveraj, Panne Singh, Hari Ram, Jai Ram, Hastimal, Chagan Lal, Nathu Bhai, Mohan Raj, Ghisulal, Bheru Mal, Mohammad Sabir, Narsingh, Bhadur Singh were examined. The order of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bali, shows that the evidence given by the above named persons prima facie disclosed that the petitioners obtained money by false representation and that they made ex-judicial confessions.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that those persons who paid money to the petitioners by way of subscriptions and can legally recover their money from the petitioners and, therefore, prima facie no offence has been committed by the petitioners. I am afraid this argument has no legs to stand. Every civilised society is based upon certain basic norms of conduct. One of these norms is the norm relating to honesty which in broader sense means that no person shall try, to obtain and enjoy or make use of any property which belongs to another and does not belong to him unless the acquisition, possession and enjoyment thereof is in accordance with the norms of conduct established by the society. Honestly in this sense is founded upon legal rights of the citizen to own, possess and enjoy their properties and in view of Art. 300(A) of the Indian Constitution, no person can be deprived of his property without the authority of law. Honesty in relation to properties is, therefore, based upon citizen's right to property as enshrined in Art. 300(A) of the Indian Constitution as well as on the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution. In view of these provisions no person can deprive any other person of his property except in accordance with law. Even if a man while going on the street finds a purse containing money he cannot utilise that money for his own purposes in view of S. 403, I.P.C. The only lawful way in which any property belonging to a citizen can be taken by another citizen is the mode permitted by the law. It is either valid transfer of the property or a valid gift or a valid exchange of properties. If anyone obtains or tries to obtain the property of another, otherwise than in permissible ways then such an act cannot be justified in any civilised society. In this connection it is useful to refer the definitions given in Ss. 23 and 24 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 23 defines "Wrongful" in the following words "Wrongful gain". - "Wrongful gain" is gain by unlawful means of property to a person gaining is not legally entitled. In Section 24, I.P.C. the word 'Dishonestly' has been defined as below, "Dishonestly" whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly".

(3.) It would appear from the definition of the expression "Wrongful gain" and "Dishonestly" that whoever so tries to obtain the property belonging to another otherwise than in legally permissible ways must be said to be causing wrongful loss to the owner of the property and wrongful gain to himself and the intention to obtain such a wrongful loss to another and obtain gain for oneself must be said to be included within the word "Dishonestly". Therefore, once it is prima facie established that the act of the person amounts to acting dishonestly for the purpose of causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to another person, it can be said without any hesitation that the act is not a permissible act and being a prohibited act it may be punishable under some law in force. Section 403, Cr. P.C. imposes punishment for mis-appropriations. Section 420, Cr. P.C. imposes punishment for cheating. Similarly if property is obtained by extortion, theft, robbery or dacoity then the act is liable to punishment according to the law. It is no answer to these offences punishable under the Penal code or any other law for the time being in force that the owner of the property can recover the property by instituting a civil proceedings. Therefore, if any person indulges in act which prima facie amounts to criminal mis-appropriation of the property, cheating, theft or robbery, such person must be tried according to law. In the instant case the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali, has come to the conclusion about charge framed against the petitioner cannot be said to be groundless. After going through his order, I am of the opinion that the petitioners deserve to be tried on the charge framed against them, and this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. deserves to be rejected.