Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 419 (RAJ)

Mojiram v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.02.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No. 1023/2003 whereby the trial Court took the cognizance of the offences under Sections 411 and 414, IPC against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order impugned taking cognizance, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned as also the record of the trial Court. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 210.2000, complainant Goverdhan Ram lodged a first information report with Police Station, Bhojasar, inter alia, alleging therein that on 20.10.2000 at about 4.30 PM when he was sitting in a jeep bearing No. RJ-19-T-1972 owned by its owner Bhiksingh at Hanumangarh bus stand, two persons came and hired the said jeep. On the way, they forcibly took the jeep from him and ran away with the jeep. On this information, the police registered Crime Case No. 120/2000 for the offence under Section 394, IPC During the course of investigation, co-accused Babu Khan gave an information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short the Act hereinafter). At his instance, a jeep bearing registration No. RJ-21-C-2044 was recovered besides the engine, chasis and other parts of the jeep No. RJ 19-T-1972, which was said to be stolen. Accused Babu Khan also furnished information under Section 27 of the Act on 15.03.2001 to the effect that the jeep bearing No. RJ-19-T-1972, which was robbed by him and co-accused, has been sold to petitioner Mojiram and Namichand sons of Humkmichand residents of Tausar, Nagaur. He furnished information that Mojiram to whom the said jeep was sold, has changed its shape by removing its hood and erased the number and removed the sticker of jeep. At his instance, the jeep bearing No. RJ-21-C-2044 was recovered from the hamlet of one Bhanwar Lal Mali. From investigation, it revealed that the body and chasis of the jeep were found to be stolen property. It also revealed that one Om Prakash son of Hari Singh made a statement that he had purchased the body and hood from the petitioner. From investigation, it revealed that the body and chasis of the jeep were found to be stolen property. It also revealed that one Om Prakash son of Hari Singh made a statement that he had purchased the body and hood from the petitioner. Thus, during investigation, the police collected the material and recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code from which, prima facie, it appears that the jeep, which was stolen by the co-accused, was subsequently found having changed its shape by removing hood and chasis, which were sold to the petitioner and petitioner in turn, thereafter sold to Om Prakash and were recovered at the instance of the petitioner. From the material available on record of the trial Court, it also appears that the petitioner is having a motor garage at Nagaur. Thus, prima facie offence punishable under Section 411, IPC is made out. So far as order framing charge under Section 414, IPC against the petitioner is concerned, the trial Court has framed the charges on the ground that the petitioner is having a motor garage and the co-accused made statement that earlier also, two stolen jeeps were sold to the petitioner. 4. On close scrutiny of the record, it nowhere appears that the petitioner has assisted in concealment of stolen property and, therefore, the order impugned to the extent framing of charge for the offence under Section 414, IPC cannot be sustained. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Order impugned to the extent of framing charge under Section 414, IPC is set aside. However, the order impugned framing charge for the offence under Section 411, IPC is maintained. 6. Stay petition stands disposed of .