Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 499 (PAT)

Chandra Mohan Jha v. State Of Bihar

2001-06-27

P.K.DEB

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.12.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Buddha Colony P.S. Case no. 57 of 1998. 3. A theft was committed in the shop of the petitioner on 29.3.1998 in the night hours and various articles kept in the shop had been stolen away. The names of some of the articles were mentioned by the petitioner in the F.I.R. and it is submitted that afterwards a detailed list showing price of the articles was submitted to the police. The police after completing investigation submitted final from stating that the theft was committed in the shop of the petitioner but goods were not recovered & no clue about thieves. The said report was accepted by the court. 4. According to the petitioner, he had given a list of articles and the price of the articles stolen away to the police officer. According to the petitioner the stolen articles were worth Rs. 11 lacs and odd but the Investigating Officer had stated that only articles worth Rs. 6 lacs and odd were stolen away. The petitioner filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for calling for a report from the Investigating Officer as to the list submitted by the petitioner soon after the F.I.R. was lodged. The Investigating Officer did not pay any heed to it and when a contempt order was sent, then the Investigating Officer had given the same report on which he had earlier mentioned the price of the stolen articles worth Rs. 6 lacs and odd but he did not furnish the list which has been supplied by the petitioner to the Investigating Officer soon after the F.I.R. was lodged. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate then accepted the report by order dated 26.11.1999 without considering the fact that the Investigating Officer had given the same report which he had given earlier which had been objected by the side of the petitioner and a petition was filed for furnishing the detailed report submitted by the petitioner regarding articles stolen away to the Investigating Officer. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate definitely has committed error in not applying judicial mind by passing the order dated 26.11.1999. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate definitely has committed error in not applying judicial mind by passing the order dated 26.11.1999. In that view, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is sent back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna to ask a fresh report from the Investigating Officer for furnishing the list of stolen articles as given by the informant soon after the theft was committed to the Investigating Officer. The Chief Judicial Magistrate will pass fresh order expeditiously as early as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 5. With the above observations/directions, this application is allowed.