MOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated September 11, 1987 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application of the accused non -petitioners to take certain documents on record and to consider them before charge and thereafter, by the same order, he has refused to frame the charge under Section 390 IPC. How ever, he has held that the charges can be framed about all other offences but they are not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are: that the petitioner Moolchand filed a complaint at Police Station Balotra on 2 -7 - 1987 at about 4.40 a.m. to this effect that the western portion of Khasra No. 616 which belonged to Baddrudin has been sold to one Khinvraj son of Dhingarmal Oswal resident of Balotra. It is alleged that Khinvraj constructed one Godown and two rooms on this land and thereafter he let them out to complainant Moolchand on 18 -6 -1986 on monthly payment of rent Rs. 250/ -. It is alleged that the complainant Moolchand started Readymade Garment business in that apartment under the name and style of 'Maya Garments'. He purchased three sewing machines, employed certain persons to perform the job of preparation of garments. It is alleged that the complainant purchased certain clothes and 1500 peticoats were prepared by the Tailors and some cloth worth Rs. 30,000/ - was lying in the apartment. It is further alleged that on 2 -7 -1986 at about 4 a,m. the accused -non -petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 came there in a Jonga Jeep in order to evict the complainant from that premises as also to remove of the goods lying in that apartment. They forcibly entered into these premises, pushed out all the persons who were sleeping there and took into possession the entire goods lying there, put all these goods in the Jonga jeep and threw the remaining goods which could not be taken away in the Jonga outside the boundary of that plot. It is alleged that accused non -petitioners Satish Kumar and Mahendra Kumar inflicted sharp weapon injuries to Hiraram. They also tried to snatch his golden Gokharu but they could not be successful and so, they snatched his H.M.T watch and took it away with them.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Sessions.Judge, an application was moved that certain documents which the accused -persons have filed before the Investigating Officer have not been taken on record because they have not been submitted with the challan. It was, therefore, prayed that these documents which go at the root of the matter may be taken on record and it may then be considered whether a charge under Section 390, IPC is made out against the accused -petitioners or not? The learned Sessions Judge, relying on a decision of this Court in L.K. Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan 1987 Raj. Criminal Cases 311 accepted that application and considered those documents before framing of the charge. It has been held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in L.K. Sharmd's case (supra) that a document filed by one of the parties can be used at the time of hearing arguments for framing charge. It was further held that the learned trial court wrongly interpreted Sections 227 and 228, Cr. PC and has wrongly held that the document can be got admitted only after framing of the charges.