Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1576 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2003-11-20

N.N.MATHUR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - A licence issued by Labour Department to shop-keeper cannot be said to be valuable security as defined u/s. 30 of IPC. N.N. Mathur, J.-I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and. perused the order dated 14.8.2001 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST.(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner-Sint. Anita was married to Ashok Kumar in November, 1987. She was being ill-treated in her in-laws house and ultimately, turned out in the year 1991. She filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Udaipur which was decreed on 25.11.1995. In execution, the articles lying in the shop of her husband namely M/s. Surendra Saree Centre were attached. Ashok Kumar produced a licence showing Ratan Lal as the proprietor of the shop. Subsequently, it revealed that a false licence was produced by Vinod Kumar, a Clerk and Praveen Kumar, a Inspector in the Shop and Commercial Establishment of Labour Department in conspriacy with accused-Ashok Kumar and Ratan Lal. The certificate was of the year 1984, whereas, Praveen Kumar entered in the services in the year 1993. On these facts, petitioner-Anita filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur. The complaint was sent for investigation to the police u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, police laid charge-sheet against all the four accused persons for offence u/ss. 468, 471, 420 & 120-B IPC. The petitioner-complainant filed an application for adding offence u/s. 467 IPC. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the complainant by order dated 19.1.1998. By the same order, learned Magistrate also discharged the accused -Praveen Kumar of offence u/ss. 467, 468, 420 & 120-B IPC. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Eventually, the matter was heard by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases. The Special Judge by order dated 20.2.1999 confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate so far as it relates to framing of additional charge for offence u/s. 467 IPC. He, however, allowed the revision petition to the extent of discharging the accused-Praveen Kumar. The learned Judge directed to proceed with Praveen Kumar alongwith other accused persons for offence u/ss. 468, 420 & 120-B IPC. The matter was carried to this Court by way of petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. at the instance of Praveen Kumar. He, however, allowed the revision petition to the extent of discharging the accused-Praveen Kumar. The learned Judge directed to proceed with Praveen Kumar alongwith other accused persons for offence u/ss. 468, 420 & 120-B IPC. The matter was carried to this Court by way of petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. at the instance of Praveen Kumar. This Court by order dated 21.9.1999 allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Court of Special Judge for fresh hearing. This Court was of the view that the revisional Court could not have given straightway direction to the Magistrate to take cognizance for offence u/ss. 468, 420 & 120-B IPC. On remand, the matter was reheard by the Special Judge. The learned Judge held that as the licence cannot said to be a valuable security, offence u/s. 467 IPC is not constituted. The trial Court accordingly, refused to frame charge against Praveen Kumar for offence u/s. 467 IPC. With respect to the case against accused-Praveen Kumar, he remitted the matter to the trial Court. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Judge has committed error in holding that the licence is not a valuable security. As such, no charge can be framed against Praveen Kumar for offence u/s. 467 IPC. In my view, the contention deserves to be rejected. The word "valuable security" as employed in the Section 467 IPC is defined u/s. 30 IPC which reads as follows:- "Section 30. "Valuable security". - The words "valuable security" denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right." 4. A document which creates or purports to create a legal right or legal liability is a valuable security as defined u/s. 30 IPC. A licence issued by the Labour Department to shop-keeper does not create any right or liability. The licence is issued for a limited statutory purposes. As such, a licence cannot be said to be a valuable security. The view taken by the learned Special Judge is in order and does not call for interference by this Court. 5. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******