V.S.AGGARWAL,J - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Ramesh (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar, dated 2.5.1987 and the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dated 11.5.88. The learned trial Court had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for eighteen months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo three months rigourous imprisonment. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of Sessions.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that on 14.1.1984 there was a theft in the house of Amir Singh and his wife Smt. Bishamberi. The ornaments of the abovesaid couple were found to be missing in their absence. The matter was reported to the police on 19.1.1984. Amir Singh is a Patwari in the revenue department in the State of Haryana. He lives in village Subana. He left his village for the place of his posting. During his absence, his wife locked the house and went to the fields. When she returned at about 1.30 p.m., she found that the box was open and all the goods were lying scattered. Her 18 ornaments were found to be missing. The matter was reported to the police and on the basis of the said complaint a formal First Information Report was recorded. It was being investigated by Sub Inspector Raj Kumar. On secret information, present petitioner was arrested. On 26.2.1984, Jag Ram, PW3, was present. The petitioner was interrogated and he disclosed that he could get recovered the ornaments concealed in his shop. The disclosure statement of the petitioner was recorded in writing, Exhibit PB. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he led the police party and got recovered the ornaments. The same were identified in presence of Sarpanch Balbir Singh by Amir Singh and his wife Smt. Bishamberi. The same had been made by Ram Kishan and Suraj Bhan, two goldsmiths. On these broad facts, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against the petitioner.
(3.) THE defence of the petitioner was that Amir Singh Patwari had contacts with the police. The petitioner had dispute with Amir Singh and he has falsely implicated him. In defence, the petitioner had examined Chiranji Lal, a resident of same village Subana. He deposed that after the alleged theft the villagers were made to throw sand in front of the house of Ram Kishan. Some of the persons including the petitioner did not throw the sand. Some ornaments were recovered.;