JUDGMENT 1. - Heard arguments in the main revision at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. A trial under Sections 380 & 401 IPC was proceeding against one Surjeet Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. During the trial Chhotu Singh PW 3 was examined on September 12, 1980 and on the basis of his statement the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 380/109 IPC against the petitioner Sribux Singh. On an application moved by the accused Surjeet Singh the case was withdrawn by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to his Court. The accused Surjeet Singh had made a confession of the guilt and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, apart from the confession, placed reliance on the statements of the prosecution witnesses and by his order, dated October 23, 1980 convicted Surjeet Singh for an offence under Section 380 IPC and sentenced him to six years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same day passed an order discharging the present petitioner for offence under Section 380/109 IPC. Aggrieved against the order of discharge, the State filed a revision which came up for consideration before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his judgement. dated July 1, 1983, set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated October 23, 1980 discharging the petitioner and remanded the case for deciding the case afresh according to law. In these circumstances the present revision has been filed by the petitioner Sribux Singh. 3. It was contended by Mr. Keshote, learned counsel for the petitioner, that no case is made out for framing charge against the petitioner. It is submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed no error in discharging the petitioner and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to set aside the said order in exercise of his powers under revision jurisdiction. Keshote, learned counsel for the petitioner, that no case is made out for framing charge against the petitioner. It is submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed no error in discharging the petitioner and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to set aside the said order in exercise of his powers under revision jurisdiction. It was submitted that on perusal of the statement of Chhotu Singh himself shown that he was working as Chowkidar and it was during his working hours that the truck in question had been stolen by Surjeet Singh and Chhotu Singh had involved the petitioner in order to save his own liability. It is further submitted that Chhotu Singh in his statement admitted that he had himself come to a belief that Surjeet Singh was a Store-keeper at the time of initial meting and subsequently when Surjeet Singh came at 12.30 O' clock in the night then he had opened the gate. It is further submitted by Mr. Keshote that the accused Surjeet Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. had stated that he had taken the truck in question with the consent of Gopal Sharma and Chhotu Singh Chowkidar and he had stolen the truck with their connivance. Surjeet Singh further stated that he had given Rs. 20,000/- to Gopal Sharma for this purpose. It is thus, contended that so far as the petitioner Shribux Singh is concerned, he has nowhere been named by the accused Surjeet Singh. It was also submitted that the petitioner was a Mistry and he has already retired from service find is suffering from tuberculosis. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of Chhotu Singh was sufficient to take cognizance against the petitioner. There was no further material before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to discharge the accused when once the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 319. Cr. I.P.C. for offence under Section 380/109 IPC. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. It is only on the basis of the statement of Chhotu Singh PW 3 that cognizance in the case was taken against the petitioner for offence under Section 380/109 IPC. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. It is only on the basis of the statement of Chhotu Singh PW 3 that cognizance in the case was taken against the petitioner for offence under Section 380/109 IPC. Apart from the solitary statement of Chhotu Singh to the effect that at the time when Surjeet Singh had taken away the truck the petitioner Shribux Singh told that he I identified Surjeet Singh and on that account Chhotu Singh permitted Surjeet Singh to take away the truck, there is no iota of evidence on record to connect Shribux Singh with the offence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while discharging the i petitioner found that Chhotu Singh was himself a chowkidar and in order to conceal his own negligence he wanted to thrust the liability on Shribux Singh. It cannot be said that the learned Cheif Judicial Magistrate was wrong in taking the aforesaid view. Apart from that the accused Surjeet Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. clearly stated that he had taken away the truck with the connivance of Chhotu Singh Chowkidar and Shri Gopal Sharma who was Asstt. Engineer in the Department. Admittedly apart from the statement of Chhotu Singh there is absolutely no material on record to connect the petitioner Shribux Singhwith the offence, The petitioner Shribux Singh has already retired from the service and is suffering from tuberculosis as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in these circumstances it would not be proper to frame any charge against the petitioner merely on the basis of the statement of Chhotu Singh. As already mentioned above, the truck in question was stolen during the time when Chhotu Singh was on duty as Chowkidar and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is a mister and had nothing to do with the custody of the truck. Thus, taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case think there was no material for framing charge against the petitioner Shribux Singh and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was right in discharging the petitioner from offence under Section 380/109 IPC. 6. Thus, taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case think there was no material for framing charge against the petitioner Shribux Singh and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was right in discharging the petitioner from offence under Section 380/109 IPC. 6. This revision is accordingly allowed, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated July 1, 1983 is set aside and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated October 21, 1980 discharing the petitioner is restored. *******