Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1080 (RAJ)

Rajmal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-08

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 02.09.2002 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur (for short ‘the revisional Court’ hereinafter) in Cr. Revision No. 05/2002 whereby the revision filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 13.01.1998 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol District Udaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’ hereinafter) was dismissed. By order dated 13.01.1998, the trial Court released the jewellery which was subject matter of the Criminal Case No.94/1990 in favour of respondent Lalit Kumar. 2. The facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner Rajmal, respondent No.2 Lalit Kumar and co-accused Kalu Singh respondent No.3, were tried in Criminal Case No.94/1990 for the offences under Sections 411 and 380, IPC. By the Judgment and order dated 17.06.1997, all the three accused were acquitted. An application was moved under Section 457, CrPC, by the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3. By order dated 13.01.1998, the trial Court released the jewellery which was subject matter of Criminal Case No.94/1990 in favour of respondent No.2 Lalit Kumar on the ground that PW-1 Ajeet Kumar and PW-2 Dharamchand clearly stated in their statement before the Court that after the death of father of Lalit Kumar, the said jewellery came in the share of respondent No.2 Lalit Kumar. The jewellery was before the trial Court as Articles 1 to 7. The petitioner failed to prove right to possess and, therefore, the trial Court released the jewellery in favour of respondent No.2 Lalit Kumar. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional Court. The revisional Court on re-appreciation of the evidence on record and relying on the statement of prosecution witnesses that the jewellery Articles 1 to 7 after death of father of Lalit Kumar came in his share, dismissed the revision petition. Even the petitioner appeared as DW -2. In his whole statement, he has not stated that articles seized by the police were mortgaged by Lalit Kumar. He only stated that certain gold jewellery was mortgaged. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the jewellery seized was the one mortgaged by the respondent. 3. In his whole statement, he has not stated that articles seized by the police were mortgaged by Lalit Kumar. He only stated that certain gold jewellery was mortgaged. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the jewellery seized was the one mortgaged by the respondent. 3. On close scrutiny of the orders of both the Courts below, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the orders impugned. More so, the petitioner has already availed one revision as envisaged under Section 397, CrPC, and in the garb of petition under Section 482, CrPC, seeks to avail the second revision which is barred under Section 397 (3), CrPC. Though in appropriate cases, this Court under Sections 482 and 483, CrPC, while exercising jurisdiction may interfere if it is established that the non-interference would result in manifest injustice or abuse of process of the Court. The case in hand is not the one in which it can be said that non-interference would result in mis-carriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.