Ram Chandra vs State & Anr on 2 February, 2011

                                       1

                 SBCr.Misc.Petition No.122/2011


                           Ramchandra
                               v.
                   State of Rajasthan & Anr.


        Date of Order             ::         2nd February, 2011


             HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR


Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, for the petitioner.
Ms. Raj Laxmi, Public Prosecutor.
                         ....


            This       misc.      petition         is     preferred    to

challenge    the       judgment        dated    30.8.2010     passed    by

learned Sessions Judge, Pali affirming the judgment

dated 22.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Pali.



            In brief, facts of the case are that one

Jagdish    son    of    Budharam       was     tried    for   an   offence

punishable under Section 407 Indian Penal Code wherein

by extension of benefit of doubt he was acquitted. The

trial     court     while      acquitting          Jagdish    determined

complainant Mahendra Goyal as owner of the goods found

in the vehicle bearing No.RJ-19-G-0009. Accordingly,

an order was passed to maintain custody of the goods

with Mahendra Goyal. Being aggrieved by the same the

petitioner       preferred      a       revision        petition   before

learned Sessions Judge with assertion that the goods

recovered should have been given to him instead of

Mahendra    Goyal      in   view       of    the   fact    that    accused
                                 2

Jagdish handed over goods to him and this fact was

substantiated        by   Murlidhar     Daga     also.      Learned

revisional court after examining the entire evidence

available on record reached at the conclusion that the

goods as a matter of fact were loaded for Calcutta and

those   were   wrongly    handed     over   to   Ramchandra,   the

petitioner. The revisional court also found that the

petitioner did not claim the entire goods even before

the trial court.



           On examination of the orders passed by the

revisional court as well as of the trial court I do

not find any material irregularity that may warrant

interference    of    this   Court    while    exercising    powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.



           The misc. petition is accordingly dismissed.



                                            ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

kkm/ps.