Skip to content


Jaspal Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 169, 170 and 171 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1984WLN(UC)505
AppellantJaspal Singh and anr.
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of the learned magistrate to hold that no prima facie case was established against the accused jaspal singh. the embezzlement in all the three cases amounts to nearly 1,78,000/- and there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence collected by the police during investigation which goes to establish a prima facie case for framing charge against the accused.;revision dismissed - - the learned magistrate, while discharging the accused persons, has taken a totally erroneous approach in observing that in such cases oral evidence was not reliable and in discarding such evidence as a whole. the original record of these cases was called before this court which shows that voluminous documentary evidence of forwarding notes and railway receipts prepared by the accused jaspal singh and..........prosecution is that cotton waste is produced while manufacturing cotton-yarn in the mill. accused jaspal singh was incharge of cotton waste department and used to do the work of keeping and maintaining cotton waste under his charge. he used to send cotton waste after putting the same in gunny bags to the parties who used to place order for its purchase to the mill. jaspal singh used to prepare railway receipt also. he used to prepare gate-pass for taking the cotton waste outside the mill gate and used to keep with him the stock register of cotton waste, railway receipt register and other records. the details of the modus operandi adopted by jaspal singh in doing embezzlement, have keen mentioned in the fir and it has been alleged that he did not give the bilties of embezzled goods to.....
Judgment:

N.M. Kasliwal, J.

1. All the above three revision petitions are disposed of by one single order as they arise in almost identical circumstances, with the distinction that the period of embezzlement is different in all the three cases.

2. M.L. Maheswari, Financial Manager of the Rajasthan Textile Mill, Bhawanimandi lodged three different F.T.Rs. on the basis of which three separate cases were registered against several accused persons and after investigation three different challans were filed in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Bhawanimandi. In all these cases the case of the prosecution is that cotton waste is produced while manufacturing cotton-yarn in the Mill. Accused Jaspal singh was incharge of cotton waste department and used to do the work of keeping and maintaining cotton waste under his charge. He used to send cotton waste after putting the same in gunny bags to the parties who used to place order for its purchase to the Mill. Jaspal Singh used to prepare railway receipt also. He used to prepare gate-pass for taking the cotton waste outside the mill gate and used to keep with him the stock register of cotton waste, railway receipt register and other records. The details of the modus operandi adopted by Jaspal Singh in doing embezzlement, have keen mentioned in the FIR and it has been alleged that he did not give the bilties of embezzled goods to the accounts department of the Mill and neither prepared bills of such goods nor credited the amount in the Mill. Most of these goods used to be sold through Ramurga Mishra broker who is absconding from Bhawanimandi and who was in conspiracy with Jaspal Singh.

3. Case No. 331/77 out of which criminal revision No. 109/83 has been filed relates to an embezzlement of 849 bags of cotton waste amounting to Rs. 43,000/- from the period April I, 1973 to March 31, 1974. Challan was filed against Ramurga Mishra (who is still absconding), Jaspal Singh, Jainirain Kalani and Beharilai Sharma. Learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, by his order, dated January 2, 1979 discharged Jainarain Kalani and Behari Lal Sharma while fixed the case on January 8, 1979 for framing charge against Jaspal Singh. It appears that the case went on adjourning and Mr. Chamanlal Bajaj, who subsequently took charge as Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Bhawanimandi, heard the agruments in respect of framing charge against Jaspal Singh. Learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, by his order, dated April 29, 1982 discharged accused Jaspal Singh also. The State aggrieved against the order of the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, dated April 29, 1982, filed a revision-petition. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawad, by his order, dated April 1983 allowed the revision-petition, set aside the order of the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, dated April 29, 1982, and remanded the case for being tried by another Judicial Magistrate posted at Jhalawad. Case No. 83/76 relates to emzzlement of 425 bags of cotton waste amounting to Rs 40,000/- for the period April 1974 to September, 1974. In this case challan was filed against Jaspal Singh, Ramugra Misra and one Mahavir Prasad who was the purchaser of the alleged cotton waste. Subsequently during the trial court took cognizance against Beharilai Sharma, Jai Narain Kalani and Radheyshyam Kacholiya also. Shri Chamanlal Bajaj, Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate Bhawanimandi, by his older, dated April 29, 1982 discharged Jaspal Singh, Mahavir Prasad, Beharilai Sharma Radhey Shyam Kacholiya and Jainarain Kalani from all the offences. The State aggrieved against the aforesaid order filed a revision and the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawad, by his order, dated April 13, 1983, allowed the revision petition so far as against Jaspal Singh and Mahavir Prasad accused persons are concerned and maintained the orders of discharge as regards accused persons Behari Lai. Jainarain and Radhey Shyam are concerned. Jaspal Singh and Mahavir Prasad have thus filed criminal revision petition No. 170/83 challenging the order of lean ed Sessions Judge, April 13, 1983.

4 Case No. 332/77 relates to embezzlement of 1140 bags of cotton waste amounting to Rs. 95,000/-from April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973. In this case challan was filed against Jaspal Singh, Ramugra Mishra Jainarain Kalani and Behari Lal Sharma, Learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate discharged Jainarain Kalani and Beharilai by his order January I, 1979 and fixed the case for framing charge against Jaspal Singh on January 8, 1979. Subsequently Mr. Chamanlal Bajaj, Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate again heard the arguments regarding framing of charge against Jaspal Singh also. By order, dated April 29, 1982, he discharged the accused Jaspal Singh also. The State aggrieved against the aforesaid order filed a revision petition in the court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawad. Learned Sessions Judge, by his order, dated April 13, 1983 allowed the revision-petition, set aside the order of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, dated April 29, 1982 and remanded the case for trial to Judicial Magistrate at Jhalawad. Jaspal Singh has filed criminal revision petition No. 171/83, aggrieved against the order of learned Sessions Judge Jhalawad, dated 13, 1983.

5. A narration of the above facts would indicate that Jaspal Singh was discharged by learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate in all the three cases by order, dated April 29, 1982 and the same has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge by order, dated April 13, 1983. Mahavir Prasad is the petitioner also along with Jaspal Singh in criminal revision petition No. 170/83 as he has also discharged by the learned Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, but the said order has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge.

6. A perusal of the order of learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, dated April 29, 1982 in all the three cases shows that he had examined the evidence in detail and had drawn inferences which were not warranted at this stage. At the stage of framing charge it is not necessary to examine the evidence in meticulous details and the trial court should only see whether the charges were groundless or not. The Court should only see whether there were groups for presuming that the accused persons had committed an offence and should not appreciate the evidence in order to find out any contradictions or other weakness in the prosecution case. The learned Magistrate, while discharging the accused persons, has taken a totally erroneous approach in observing that in such cases oral evidence was not reliable and in discarding such evidence as a whole. The original record of these cases was called before this Court which shows that voluminous documentary evidence of forwarding notes and railway receipts prepared by the accused Jaspal Singh and statements of employees of the Mill have been recorded during investigation, which clearly establish a prima facie case against the accused persons. I see no ground or justification for the learned Magistrate to have ignored this voluminous documentary evidence at this stage of framing charge.

7. I have perused the order of the learned Sessions Judge and he has taken great pains in meeting all the grounds mentioned by the learned Magistrate in his order of discharge. Learned Sessions Judge has carefully examined the entire facts and circumstances of this case and has rightly observed that the approach taken by the learned Magistrate in these cases was totally erroneous. Even if for some of the consignment there was no material on record to show as to who got the consignment released from railway. It cannot be a ground for discharging Jaspal Singh when there was an allegation that he prepared the gate-pass, took away the goods out side the Mill premises and prepared the railway receipts and despatched the goods to various destinations through railway. The further allegation of the prosecution is that he did not prepare the bills of such goods and did not credit the amount in the Mill. For the above allegations there was evidence both documentary and oral recorded by the police during investigation and it was highly improper and unjustified on the part of the learned Magistrate to hold that no prima facie case was established against the accused Jaspal Singh, The embezzlement in all the three cases amounts to nearly 1,78,000/- and there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence collected by the police during investigation which goes to establish a prima facie case for framing charge against the accused Jaspal Singh. So far as Mahavir Prasad is concerned, learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that there was material on record to show that he had received the goods embezzled by Jaspal Singh. He was Proprietor of M/s Kasiram and Brothers, Sabji Mandi Market, Delhi and even Mahavir Prasad had not taken the stand that he was not proprietor of such concern.

8. Thus, taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of case and the material available on record, there is hardly any ground or justification for interfering with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated April 13, 1983 passed in all these three cases.

9. The revision petitions have, therefore, no force and are dismissed accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //