Theft

After the investigation of the case, the report under S.173, Cr.P.C. was submitted and the petitioners were summoned to face trial

During trial, the petitioners submitted an application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. seeking their acquittal from the charge as framed against them and the Trial Court on the same day allowed the said application and directed the acquittal of the petitioners from the charge

Such order was assailed by way of filing a criminal revision petition which was allowed with a direction to the Trial Court to retry the petitioners

Provisions of the law with regard to the acquittal of an accused during the trial held by a Magistrate are very clear in their meaning

Section 417 Cr.P.C., provides that if an accused was acquitted in a case, a person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court may within 30 days file an appeal against such order

Under S.439(5), Cr.P.C, it has been expressly provided by law that where under the Cr.P.C, an appeal laid then no proceedings by way of revision would be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed

In this case, the petitioners were acquitted in the case FIR, therefore, the complainant of the case, had to file an appeal against their acquittal under S.417, Cr.P.C., however, he proceeded to file a criminal revision petition which was not even permissible under the provisions of S.439 subsection (5), Cr.P.C.

Furthermore, the Revisional Court, while accepting the said criminal revision petition also erred in law and exercised jurisdiction which it did not have

In a case of acquittal,an appeal had to be filed under S.417, Cr.P.C.

No proceedings by way of criminal revision petition under S.439, Cr.P.C. were envisaged in a case where accused had been acquitted by any Court other than a High Court

Petition was allowed by setting aside order passed by Revisional Court.

FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of more than three months for which the complainant did not utter a single word

Co-accused of the petitioner, who was ascribed a similar role, had been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction

Petitioner was a lady of advanced age

Maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under section 379, P.P.C. was three years and the same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

Case of the petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into her guilt

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was confirmed.

Allegations against the accused petitioners were that they were stealing the goats and cows of the people and after slaughtering these animals, selling meat to the various butcher shops

Co-accused petitioners seemed to be habitual offenders

Some skins of slaughtered animals were recovered from the possession of the co-accused petitioners, which could not be taken lightly

Chief Court observed that agonies and miseries of the destitute families could not be expressed in words as there was a famous saying that "only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches"

Bail was declined in circumstances.

Petitioner was at liberty to file an application before trial court where challan was pending and the same should be decided on merits and in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Record had revealed that statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded by Magistrate in terms of S.202, Cr.P.C., lacked intrinsic and inherent worth as the complainant and his witnesses had made tutored statements totally oblivious of the time and date of alleged occurrence

Said witnesses were neither confidence-inspiring nor reliable

Complainant had filed said complaint after six years of the alleged occurrence

Delay in lodging of the private complaint, though was no ground for its dismissal, but in the present case, mala fide of the complainant could not be ignored as he had not approached the court with clean hands

Complainant's statement and evidence of prosecution witnesses in such state of affairs, could not be termed as prima facie, reliable incriminating material to issue the process under S.202, Cr.P.C.

Prosecution story and the testimonies of interested prosecution witnesses, neither reliable nor confidence-inspiring, had shown that Magistrate had rightly weighed the cursory evidence and other material on the record produced by the complainant with due care and application of judicious mind while passing impugned order which did not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or irregularity of proceedings

Petition was dismissed.

Amount of Rs.23,000 was recovered from the accused, but there was no evidence to the effect that recovered amount was the amount that had been stolen from the complainant and it seemed highly doubtful that a person after robbing alighting from the train would just stand at a short distance and wait for someone to arrest him

Case against accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Damaging the supply line of a national resource/asset and thereby causing huge loss, in connivance with officials of the government department, was not an ordinary offence, rather it was serious in nature and grievous in consequence, which brought it within the definition of a terrorist act, attracting the provisions of S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

Word "disrupt" occurring in S.6(2)(i), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is synonymous to word 'disorder', 'distract', interfere with' 'upset', 'abstract', 'distort', 'damage', 'sunder' etc.

Complainant had implicated the accused in the case simply on the basis of suspicion about the theft of his cell phone and some cash

Complainant and other prosecution witness had only learnt that it was the accused who had stolen the said items, but record was absolutely silent as to the source of their information

Doubt or suspicion, howsoever strong, could not be equated with admissible evidence and accused even at bail stage was entitled to get the benefit of doubt

Complainant during investigation had failed to connect the accused with the crime through any evidence

False implication of accused in the present situation due to malice or ulterior motive of the complainant, could not be ruled out

Pre-arrest bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.

Accused was caught red-handed on the spot by the complainant, part of the stolen amount was recovered from him and he was handed over to police available nearby

Said action was in consonance with the provisions of S.59, Cr. P. C.

No apparent enmity appeared between the parties, nor the police had any mala fides against the accused

Sufficient incrimi­nating material was available on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence

Offence' under S.379, P.P.C. was not bailable and though the same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., yet on said ground bail could not be claimed as a right

Failure to mention the denomi­nations and serial numbers of the stolen currency notes was no ground to make the case one of further inquiry

Bail was disallowed to accused in circumstances.

Appellant/complainant had sought remand of case to the Trial Court for deciding same on merits, setting aside impugned order whereby the Trial Court while accepting application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. had acquitted accused of the charge

Trial Court had acquitted accused persons on various grounds and points noted and conclusion drawn by the Trial Court, were based on material present on the record

Inordinate delay in reporting matter was unexplained and case of prosecution was doubtful

Impugned order was well-reasoned and the Trial Court had come to the right conclusion

Appellant/complainant had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, on account of which any interference was required therein

On basis of available evidence no conviction could result

Remand of case was declined in circumstances.

Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. with the specific role of having committed the theft of trees owned by Forest Department by cutting the same

Wood valuing Rs.75,550 had been recovered from the possession of accused

Accused had admitted the crime and deposited the compensation on account of loss caused to Forest Department

Offence under S.379, P.P.C. was being heinous one, extraordinary relief of bail before arrest could not be extended to a thief, who had admitted to have committed the theft

Pre­arrest bail was refused to accused accordingly.

Pre-arrest bail allowed to accused was recalled accordingly.

Petitioner had not availed alternative remedy under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of the case before the Justice of Peace

Petitioner had filed constitutional petition directly in High Court

Whether truck in question was stolen or not, that matter was subject of investigation

Exercising power under Art.199 of the Constitution, while the case was not yet registered about the alleged theft of truck, High Court could not straightaway pass order directing the S.H.O. concerned to take into possession the truck in question under S.550, Cr.P.C., considering that it was stolen by some one else

Said observation or finding just prior to registration of case, could prejudice the case of the either side in future

Contents of the constitutional petition transpired that it was not an exceptional case arising out of extraordinary circumstances, warranting direct interference of High Court

Petitioner should first avail alternate remedy, if he failed to get the relief then the petitioner could file constitutional petition

Petition was dismissed.

Accused, daughter of complainant, allegedly removed gold ornaments and cash from the house in joint occupation of its inmates including herself

Accused could not be held responsible and liable for the charge of theft in circumstances.

Finding of Courts below that testimony of solitary eye-witness could safely be relied upon particularly in absence of his enmity with accused

Conviction of petitioner on basis of such evidence

Held, un-exceptionable

Petitioner, however, allowed benefit of S. 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Leave to appeal refused.

Ss. 3, 5 to 14-Theft-Hadd - Jurisdiction - Ordinance applies Islamic punishment of had to certain kinds of theft and leaves cases of theft not liable to hadd etc. to be punished under Penal Code, 1860-Ordinance despite enjoining by its S. 3 to have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, held, does not establish any new hierarchy of Courts-No provision of Ordinance, held further, sets up a special Court or Courts of exclusive jurisdiction for trial of offences made liable to imposition of Hudood and such punishments can be awarded by existing Courts of competent jurisdiction if other requirements spelt out in Ordinance as regards nature of offence and standard of proof fulfilled.-[Theft-Hadd

Jurisdiction].

Accused can be convicted of one offence only under S. 411 unless such stolen property proved to have been received at different times.