UDAI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated 30 -5 -1988 where by the learned Judge has taken cognizance against the accused -petitioners for the offence under Sections 384 and 347 IPC.

(2.) FACTS necesary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that accused Undailal is a liquor contractor at village Badi in Sub -Division, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh. He was having a shop at village. Khara also. On 5 -2 -1986, a raid was made on his shop in village Khara and the liquor worth Rs. 36,000/ - was seized by the Excise Party. The accused -petitioner Udailal and his brother thought this has been because of some information leaked out by complainant Lalchand and his brother Manoharlal. It is alleged that on 5 -2 -1986, Manoharlal went to village Katadi and from there he was called through one Manmal who is the Munim of accussed Udailal at Nimbaheda. There it is alleged that accused Sushilkumar Manmal and Devendran Kumar were sitting and they accused him of 'Gaddhari', gave beating to him and then he was confined in a room which was closed from out side. Later, it is alleged that on 6 -2 -1986, complainant Lalchand was also called there and he was told that his brother Manoharlal is there. It is further alleged that when complainant Udailal went to Nimbaheda at the house of accused Udailal an electric motor was brought and electric current was passed through his body in order to extract the sale -deed of his land from him as also for execution of a pro -note from him so that he may recoupe the loss of Rs. 36,000/ - It is alleged that on 7 -2 -1986, the accused -persons took the complainant Lalchand with them and they purchased Stamps. They threatened him that at the time of excution of sale -deed before the Tehsildar, if he will speak, he will have to face dire consequences. How ever under this threat the accused petitioners got the sale deed of complainant Lalchand's land executed in their favour for a sum a Rs. 15,000/ - along with the execution of a pronote for Rs. 21,000/ - and thereby making goods the loss of Rs. 36,000/ -suspected to have been caused on account of some information leaked out by Lalchand and Manoharlal.

(3.) I have heard Mr. J.R. Patel, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused -petitioners and have carefully gone through the record of the case.