TEJU MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 18. 1. 1988 whereby the learned Magistrate has discharged the accused non-petitioner Daya Krishna of the offences under ss. 170, 419, 420, 392 and 342 IPC on the basis of the Final Report submitted by Shri Kanti Prakash, Inspector, C. I. D (C. B. ).

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that petitioner Tejumal filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Mansif & Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh on 19 1. 1982 pleading inter-alia, that accused-non-pelitioner Dayakrishna and one more person came to his house on 10 1. 1982 at about 4 PM. THEy were in police dress. THEy gave out that they have been sent by the Dy. S. P. Hanumangarh. Accused-non-petitioner Daya Krishna told him that he is the Reader working in the Office of the Dy. S. P. Hanumangarh whereas his companion told him that he is working as constable in that office. It is alleged that these accused-petitioners told the complainant Tejumal that the Jeep which is in his possession is a stolen property and so, he should hand over all the papers relating to that Jeep otherwise he will be arrested. On this, he handed over all the papers relating to that Jeep to them and they took them. It is alleged that the complainant told them that he has purchased this Jeep from one Ram Prakash Mistry through Mahaveer Master. THEy then took the complainant in the Jeep to Hanumangarh and went to Master Mahaveer and told him that he is indulging himself in the transactions of stolen Jeeps. Mahaveer requested the accused-persons to leave him whereupon he was left alongwith the complainant near Rawatsar Road and later, the driver who was driving the Jeep was also left and the Jeep was taken in possession by these accused-persons. It is alleged that they also took out Rs. 100/- from the pocket of the driver.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. R. Singhi, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner, Miss Sumitra Sankhla, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. U. R. Tatia, the learned counsel for accused-non-petitioner Daya Krishna. I have carefully gone through the record of the case.