Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1331 (RAJ)

Prem Raj v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-05

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and public prosecutor for the State. No one appears for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 though personally served. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 19.01.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh (Churu) (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No. 325/2004 whereby the trial Court directed the investigating officer to seize 60 Tin-sheets/roofing and iron gate from the petitioners and produce the same before the trial Court. Aggrieved by the order impugned dated 19.01.2005, the accused petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties present and perused the order impugned dated 19.01.2005. 4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present revision are that on 27.08.2004 a complaint was filed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406 and 420, IPC, before the trial Court. The trial Court sent the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. On receipt of the complaint, the police registered first information report No. 66/2004 and proceeded with the investigation. After completion of the investigation, under Section 173 of the Code, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners for the offences under Sections 406 and 420, IPC on 011.2004. By order dated 011.2004, the trial Court took the cognisance of the offences against the petitioners and matter was posted to 15.02.2005 for arguments on charge. On 18.01.2005 complainant-respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application requesting the trial Court to direct the investigating agency to seize 60 Tin-sheet/Roofing and Iron Gate from the petitioners and produce the same before the trial Court. The trial Court preponed the date fixed for arguments on charge from 15.02.2005 to 19.01.2005 and decided the application by the order impugned and directed the investigating agency to seize the articles noticed above. On careful perusal of the order impugned, it appears that no matter was pending for investigation with the police. The police had already concluded the investigation and filed challan, thereafter the trial Court took the cognisance of the offences and the matter was posted for framing of charge. On careful perusal of the order impugned, it appears that no matter was pending for investigation with the police. The police had already concluded the investigation and filed challan, thereafter the trial Court took the cognisance of the offences and the matter was posted for framing of charge. At the stage of charge what was required by the trial Court was to consider as to whether on the basis of challan filed by the police under Section 173 of the Code, the charges for the offences under Sections 406 and 420, IPC, are made out or not? and there exists sufficient ground to presume that the accused committed an offence, then charges are to be framed and if the trial Court comes to conclusion on basis of material i.e. challan papers that there are no sufficient ground to presume that the accused committed an offence, then to discharge the accused. It appears from the order impugned as if the trial Court acted as police investigating agency in directing police to recover the alleged articles, such an order is unwarranted in law. In the circumstances, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.01.2005 is set aside. The stay application also stands disposed of .