JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition filed under section 397 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Munnalal Jain has prayed that the charge under section 411 I.P.C. that has been framed against the petitioner, by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Didwana, by his order dated 19th June, 1982 be quashed. 2. On 20th January,1980, Shri Kripal Singh Junior Engineer 'PHED' Didwana lodged a report at police station Khunkhuna wherein it was stated that 124 AC pressure pipes of 100 mm diameter and 4 metres length belonging to the PHED, Government of Rajasthan have been stolen from near Ranisa village. On the basis of the aforesaid report, case under section 379 1 P.C. was registered. On the 20th February, 1980 Shri Kripalsingh lodged another report at police station Khunkhuna with regard to the theft of 15 AC pressure pipes of the same dimension from the same place and on the basis of the said report another case under section 379 Cr. P.C was registered. After completing the investigation in both the cases the police filed separate charge sheets in the court of Mnnsif and Judicial Magistrate, Didwana against the petitioner and three other persons viz , Vijay Kumar, Mahavir and Rajvir is Jagvir. According to the aforesaid charge sheets, the pipes were stolen by accused Mahavir and Rajvir @ Jagvir and they were removed in a truck and the said pipes were sold by the aforesaid accused persons to the petitioner and accused Vijay Kumar at Delhi. On the basis of be afore,said charge sheets two cases, criminal case No. 340/80 and 352/80 were registered and cognizance was taken against the accused persons including the petitioner By order dated 9th June, 1982, the Judicial Magistrate framed charges under section 411 I.P.C. against the petitioner and Vijay Kumar and directed that both the cases should be tried together under section 219 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order framing a charge under section 411 I.P.C. against him, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 3. I have heard Shri M.M. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petition and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the record. 4. Shri Singhvi has submitted that on the basis of the material on record, no offence under section 411 IPC can be said to be made out against the petitioner and that the Judicial Magistrate has erred in framing the charge against the petitioner. I have also perused the record. 4. Shri Singhvi has submitted that on the basis of the material on record, no offence under section 411 IPC can be said to be made out against the petitioner and that the Judicial Magistrate has erred in framing the charge against the petitioner. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Singhvi has invited my attention to the papers that have been filed by the police alongwith the charge sheet and has pointed out that according to the said papers the involvement of the petitioner in the purchase of the stolen pipes or the possession of the stolen pipes cannot be said to have been made out. 5. The charge that has been framed against the petitioner is that on or about 12th February, 1980, the petitioner kept in his Possession 280 AC pressure pipes of 100 mm diameter and 4 metre length which were stolen frnm the possession of the PRED, Didwana knowing that they were stolen property and that the said pipes were recovered from the possession by the Delhi police under section 102 Cr. P.C. and the same were identified to have been stolen by the Junior Engineer, Didwana. Thus the charge that has been levelled against the petitioner is that he was in possession of 280 AC Pressure pipes knowing the same to be stolen property and that the said pipes were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The 280 pipes which are referred to in the charge were recovered by Delhi police vide recovery memos dated 12th February, 1980. Under. the aforesaid recovery memos 252 AC pressure pipes of 100 mm. diameter and 4 metre length were recovered from a house in Delhi. According to the recovery memo, the said house was stated to be used as godown by accused Vijay Kumar Jain. The second recovery memo relates to the recovery of 44 AC pressure pipes of 100 mm. diameter and 4 metre length from another godown in Delhi and the recovery memo about the said recovery also shows that accused Vijay Kumar had taken the police party to the said godown. None of the aforesaid two recoveries whereby the stolen pipes were recovered mentions the name of the petitioner. The aforesaid recoveries were made by Saroop Singh ASI police station Nangloi, Delhi. In his statement under section 161 Cr. None of the aforesaid two recoveries whereby the stolen pipes were recovered mentions the name of the petitioner. The aforesaid recoveries were made by Saroop Singh ASI police station Nangloi, Delhi. In his statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. Saroop Singh has stated that he had arrested the petitioner and Vijaykumar in connection with the theft of 60 AC Pressure pipes from the area of police station Nangloi and during the course of investigation in that case he had recovered the stolen pipes in question from the godown of Vijay Kumar and on the basis of enquiry from the accused persons he learnt that these pipe had been purchased by the accused persons, namely the petitioner and Vijay Kumar from Mahavir Chand and Jagvir. Although in his statement aforesaid Saroop Singh has also mentioned the name of the petitioner but there is no material on record to connect the petitioner either with the godowns from which the stolen pipes were recovered or to show that the petitioner was having common business with Vijay Kumar. On the other hand, the recovery memos relating to the stolen pipes indicate that the recoveries were made at the instance of Vijay Kumar only from the godowns which are mentioned by Vijay Kumar as his own godowns. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to place any other material on the basis of which it may be said that the petitioner was in possession of the stolen pipes which have bee recovered by Saroop Singh A.S.I police station Nangloi, Delhi. 6. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no material on record on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner is involved in the commission of the offence under section 411 I.P.C. in relations to the 280 pressure pipes referred to in the charge, to require the petitioner to undergo the trial would only mean prolonged harassment. In my opinion, therefore, this is a fit case in which the charge that has been framed against the petitioner for the offence under section 411 I.P.C. should be quashed. 7. The revision petitions, therefore, allowed and the charge under section 411 I P.C. that has been framed against the petitioner by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Didwana under his order dated 19th June, 1982 in criminal cases Nos. 340/80 and 352/80 is quashed. 7. The revision petitions, therefore, allowed and the charge under section 411 I P.C. that has been framed against the petitioner by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Didwana under his order dated 19th June, 1982 in criminal cases Nos. 340/80 and 352/80 is quashed. The original record may be returned to the court of the Magistrate forthwith.Revision allowed. *******