Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dharmpal vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 24 July, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 837 / 2017
Dharmpal Son of Shri Mahaveer Prasad, by Caste Meena, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Bad Ki Dhani, Tan Dalelpura, Police Station
Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali with Mr. Pramod Kumar Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, P.P. for State _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 24/07/2017
1. With consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 25.04.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2017, whereby, the Appellate Court set-aside the conviction and sentence passed under Sections 19/54, 54-D of Rajasthan Excise Act and Sections 467, 468, 120 B of I.P.C. but upheld the judgment of conviction for offence under Sections 471 and 201 of I.P.C. passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu in Criminal Case No. 279/ 2015 (C.R.O No. 1256/2016).
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.07.2015 at (2 of 5) [CRLR-837/2017] 2:00 P.M. Ex. P-6 F.I.R. was filled by Rampal, Sub Inspector, Police Station Udaipurwati alleging therein, that on 15.07.2015 at 8:30 A.M. the police party proceeded from the police station in furtherance of investigation of F.I.R. No. 225/2015.
4. It was contended that a secret information was received at 10:10 AM that a white Pick-Up is coming from Nayabas Surpura Road and a Major D.I Jeep is escorting. At 10:40 AM a Major D.I Jeep and a Pick-Up was seen coming from Surpura Road and seeing the police party the D.I Jeep and the Pick-Up tried to flee. In the vehicle D.I Jeep, four to five persons were sitting. Sumer Meena was driving the Pick-Up and Vikas Meena, Nathu @ Pappu Meena and Dharampal Meena were sitting. These persons aborted the vehicle and tried to flee from the spot but Dharampal Meena was apprehended and the police after investigation came to the conclusion that the vehicle was having a fake number plate and the registration number which the vehicle was depicting was in fact of a Tempo.
5. Charge-sheet was filed against four persons. Trial Court convicted all the co-accused and an appeal was preferred by the accused. Except the present petitioner all other accused namely Sumer Meena, Nathu @ Pappu Meena and Vikas Meena were acquitted Dharampal Meena was acquitted for offence under Sections 19/54, 54-D of Rajasthan Excise Act and Sections 120-B, 467, 468-A, 419 of I.P.C. but was convicted for offence under Sections 201 and 471 of I.P.C. aggrieved by which this revision petition has been preferred.
6. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the case of (3 of 5) [CRLR-837/2017] the present petitioner is akin to that of the other co-accused who were sitting in the vehicle.
7. It is contended that admittedly Sumer Meena was driving the vehicle and if the prosecution case is to be believed the petitioner was only a passenger in the vehicle who was apprehended from near the vehicle.
8. It is contended that the Appellate Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the vehicle was in conscious possession of the petitioner and has thus erred in convicting the petitioner.
9. It is also contended that there was material before the Court below to have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has put fake number plate. The vehicle was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner and no information was taken by the police under the Motor Vehicle Act from the present petitioner with regard to the possession and ownership of the vehicle. It is also contended that the police has nowhere mentioned, as to what happened to the other persons who were sitting in the vehicle and why they were not apprehended from the spot.
10. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has filed a complaint against the police personnel and for that reason the police has framed him up in a false case.
11. It is contended that petitioner has produced documents in his defence to establish that he has filed cases before the Lokayukta against the police party.
12. Petitioner has set up the defence that he was bogged up from his house and was then framed up in the present case.
(4 of 5) [CRLR-837/2017]
13. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that petitioner has criminal antecedents and he was caught from the side from where vehicle was seized and liquor was recovered.
14. I have considered the contentions.
15. As far as case of the present petitioner is concerned the police has come up with the clean case that there were four persons sitting in the Pick-Up namely Sumer Meena, Dharampal Meena, Nathu @ Pappu Meena and Vikas Meena. It is also the case of the police party. Sumer Meena was driving Pick-Up Bolero Vehicle.
16. The Court below has acquitted Sumer Meena, Nathu @ Pappu Meena and Vikas Meena. To my mind there appears to be no difference in the case of the co-accused and the present petitioner and he was not arrested while he was sitting in the vehicle, thus, his case cannot be distinguished from the other co- accused.
17. Admittedly he was not driving the vehicle, therefore, the vehicle could not set up in his conscious possession as he was merely a passenger in the vehicle. Police has further not investigated as to who was the true owner of the vehicle and no information has been received with regard to the place from where Bolero was stolen and who in fact stole the vehicle.
18. The ingredients of the offence under Sections 201 and 471 of I.P.C. are thus not made against the present petitioner, since the Court below has acquitted all the accused for offence under Sections 19/54, 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act and under (5 of 5) [CRLR-837/2017] Sections 120-B, 467 and 468, 419 of I.P.C.
19. In view of the above, the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court convicting the present petitioner for offence under Section 471 and 201 of I.P.C. deserves to be quashed and set- aside. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. Petitioner is acquitted of the charges under Sections 471 and 201 of I.P.C.
20. The petitioner is directed to furnish personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction of the trial Court in compliance of Section 437-A Cr. P.C.
21. Petitioner to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Record of the Court below be returned forthwith.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
Amit/36