STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. WAMAN NARAYAN GHEEYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 21-4-2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Sirohi in Sessions case No. 112/2000 whereby, while discharging the accused non-petitioners from offence under Section 413, IPC the trial Court framed charge for offences under Sections 457, 380, 411 and 120-B, IPC against the accused non-petitioners. The State has preferred this revision petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 21-4-2005 to the extent the trial Court has discharged the non-petitioners from the offence under Section 413, IPC.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner-State, that on 20-10-2002, complainant Purushottam Das submitted a written report to the S.H.O., Police Station Mandar that he had been performing worship in Warmeshwar Mahadev temple. On 20-10-2002, at about 7 a.m., he came to the temple and saw that the door of the temple was displaced and two idols of Lord Shiv and Parvati were not there. Thereafter, he gathered the villagers and has thus lodged the FIR. Upon this information, the case was registered and usual investigation was commenced. After investigation, challan was filed against the accused non-petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, 411,413 and 120-B, IPC. After committal, the trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the accused non-petitioners and, after hearing the arguments, the trial Court discharged the non-petitioners from alleged offence under Section 413, IPC and framed charges for the remaining offences i.e., Sections 457. 380, 411 and 120-B, IPC on 21-4-2005. The State has challenged the said order to the extent of discharge of the nonpetitioners for offence under Section 413,IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that discharging the accused non- petitioners is totally contrary to the provisions of law. There was material on record for framing charge under Section 413, IPC because number of cases are registered against the non-petitioners for committing offence under Section 413, IPC and specific allegation on the basis of material on record was made that the non-petitioners are habitual in dealing with the stolen property, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have framed charge against the non-petitioners for offence under Section 413, IPC.