Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1681 (RAJ)

Janki Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-08

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Admit, Public Prosecutor accepts notices on behalf of the State. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision-petition aggrieved by order dated 24.3.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Kota, whereby petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- on non-payment of fine, petitioner is to further undergo additional one month simple imprisonment and against judgment and orders dated 3.7.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kota, whereby bail preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of two days in lodging of FIR. Complainant is a police personnel. In the recovery memo, Exhibit P-1 there is no mention that petitioner was present with the motor cycle or he was in conscious possession of motor cycle. It is also contended that as per arrest memo Exhibit P-2, all the witnesses in this case are police witnesses who are interested witnesses. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner, hence, Court below have committed grave error in convicting the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. 5. I have considered the contentions and I have carefully perused the documents on record. Admittedly, there is a delay of two days in lodging of FIR. No document has been produced to established that the complainant informed at the Police Station about theft of his vehicle. Complainant being a Police Constable, it was his duty to report the matter immediately to the police. The recovery memo and arrest memo, both do not implicate the petitioner as there is no mentioning that he was in conscious possession of the stolen vehicle. In the light of the above, the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is, accordingly, allowed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by appellant-Janki Lal s/o Shri Urenja is allowed. The judgement and order dated 3.7.2018 passed by Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kota in Sessions Case No.207/2017 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted for the charges levelled against him. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is, accordingly, allowed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by appellant-Janki Lal s/o Shri Urenja is allowed. The judgement and order dated 3.7.2018 passed by Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kota in Sessions Case No.207/2017 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted for the charges levelled against him. He is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cases or for any other purpose. 8. Keeping, however, in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant-Janki Lal s/o Shri Urenja is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within two weeks of his release, which shall be effective for a period of six months that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 9. Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith.