Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1149 (MP)

Premchand Gupta v. State of M. P.

2014-09-15

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
JUDGMENT M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is being finally heard. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting side the order dated 16.08.2011 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Cr. Revision No. 177 of 2011 confirming the order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna in Cr. Case No. 3824 of 2006, whereby, charge under Section 379 of IPC was framed against the petitioner. 3. The facts, in brief are that, on 07.07.1986 at 8.00 pm, information was received by the police station Raghogarh from an informer stating that in the Truck bearing No. CPZ 7461, 50 sacks of cement by way of theft was being carried out from Sanjay Sagar Dam, Raghogarh to Gwalior. On this information, Officer-in-charge of police station Raghogarh by giving necessary instructions to his staff came to Guna. At Guna police station, telephone call had also been received to the effect that the said truck had departed from the place. On this information, A.S.I. Pathak & H.C. Som Singh taking some other police personnel's with them in a Police vehicle bearing registration number MPP-2848 reached Nankhedi near Amrik Sardar Hotel and started carrying out checking. The said truck which was coming from Raghogarh was stopped and on being checked, 50 sacks of cement were found inside it. The Truck driver Gulab, Sub-Engineer Premchand Gupta (petitioner/accused) were sitting in front of the truck. Rashid, Ahmed, Iqbal Khan, Jagdish Prasad, Khem Singh, Riyaj Mohd., Santosh, Nazeez and Hazar Hussain were sitting in the truck. Driver Gulab Khan stated that from the store pertaining to Sanjay Sagar Dam located at Raghogarh, 50 sacks of cement were loaded and by way of theft Sub-Engineer P.C. Gupta was taking away the said cement to his home in Gwalior, therefore, from the truck No. CPZ 7461, 50 sacks of cement, one roller, one try pot and three pipes were seized. On the basis of the aforesaid seizure, offence under Section 379 of IPC and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act was registered against the petitioner/accused. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the trial court, where from, the charge under Section 379 of IPC was levelled as stated earlier. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid seizure, offence under Section 379 of IPC and under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act was registered against the petitioner/accused. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the trial court, where from, the charge under Section 379 of IPC was levelled as stated earlier. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The said sacks of cement were got loaded by Store Keeper, Ram Bharose, from the store pertaining to Sanjay Sagar Dam, Irrigation department for sending it to the S.D.O. Mahendra Singh as per his letter dated 3.7.1986 and receipt was obtained by him from the driver of the truck. Further in the statements of the witnesses, it has not come on record that the said cement was taken away by the petitioner/accused by committing theft. Learned counsel further contends that the seized property belongs to Irrigation Department. No report was lodged by any officer of the Irrigation Department to the effect that 50 sacks of cement were stolen from the Sanjay Sagar Dam. Counsel further pleads that as per the direction of the Asstt. Engineer vide letter dated 4.7.86, the petitioner/accused was going in the truck for delivering a single drum sheep foot roller to Nankhedi, situated at PHE Guna. Therefore, the petitioner/accused has no concern with the seized sacks of cement as the said property was neither received by the petitioner/accused from the store nor was it being carried away on his direction. 5. Learned counsel placing reliance upon the judgment of Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 , has submitted that the learned trial court and the revisional court while passing the impugned orders have not assigned any reasons in the aforesaid orders for framing the charge against the petitioner/accused. Learned counsel further placing reliance on Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar & Others vs. Abanidhar Roy, 1963 Legal Eagle (SC) 210, pleads that in this case, there is no evidence on record to frame the charge against the petitioner/accused under Section 379 of IPC. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for discharging the petitioner/accused. 6. Learned counsel further placing reliance on Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar & Others vs. Abanidhar Roy, 1963 Legal Eagle (SC) 210, pleads that in this case, there is no evidence on record to frame the charge against the petitioner/accused under Section 379 of IPC. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for discharging the petitioner/accused. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/accused has prayed for rejection of the petition by submitting that as per the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, there was sufficient evidence on record against the petitioner/accused for the charge framed by the trial court and confirmed by the revisional court. Hence, petition under Section 482 filed by the petitioner/accused be dismissed. 7. Arguments were heard and record was perused. 8. So far as the contention that the learned trial court as well as revisional court ought to have passed detail reasoned order in framing the charge is concerned on the basis of the cited judgment in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane (supra), the said contention is not acceptable. As per the aforesaid judgment, whenever a charge is levelled by the trial court, the court has to consider the documents and statements filed by the prosecution alongwith the charge-sheet. But it is not necessary for the court to give a detailed reason for framing the charge as held by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar through CBI (AHD) Patna, (2007) 1 SCC 49 . 9. On perusal of the record, it is evident that no report was lodged by the Irrigation Department where from the 50 sacks cement were taken away in the truck and the said sacks of cement belongs to it and even no statement was given by any officer or authority of the department to the effect that the said sacks of cement were stolen from the store. On the contrary, as per the statement of Ram Bharose, Store Keeper, in whose possession the alleged sacks of cement was, it is evident that the 50 sacks of cement were handed over by him to the driver Gulab of the truck No. CPZ 7461 on 07.07.1986 for delivering to the S.D.O. Mahendra Singh as per his request letter dated 3.7.1986 and receipt in this regard was obtained by him from the said driver. In this manner, the seized sacks of cement were handed over to the driver by the said store keeper for the aforesaid purpose as stated above. On perusal of the statements of other witnesses, Gulab Khan, Iqbal Khan, Rashid Ahmed, Santosh, Riyaz Mohd., Khem Singh, Hazratuddin, who were sitting in the truck, it has also come on record that they were also sitting on the said truck along with the petitioner/accused. Nonetheless, they have not deposed that the said cement was being carried by the petitioner/accused by stealing it from the store. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, it has not been found that the said cement was being stolen and taken away by the petitioner/accused from the store of Irrigation Department. Therefore, it is concluded that the learned trial court as well as revisional court both have committed error in holding that the offence under Section 379 of IPC was made out against the petitioner/accused. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the evidence on record, this court comes to the conclusion that the charge framed against the petitioner/accused under Section 379 of IPC is contrary to law and is hereby set-aside. His bail bond and surety bond are hereby cancelled. The record of the trial court be returned along with copy of the order.