Kailash Chand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Kailash Chand and anr. vs State of Rajasthan and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 02, 1991

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/759476

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/759476
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: N.L. Tibrewal, J.
Decided On: Apr 02, 1991
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 753 of 1990
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Sections 457, 380, 406, 411 and Criminal Procedure Code--Section 451--Seized property--Supurdgi of--Ornaments seized from possession of K-- Magistrate passed order to deliver ornaments to non-petitioner No. 2--Held, powers Under Section 451 are discretionary and no interference is called for.;After regi...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kailash Chand and anr.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1991(1)WLN332

Excerpt

.....still pending in the court of learned judicial magistrate, rajgarh. then the non-petitioner no.2 moved an application that the articles/ornaments be given in his 'supurdgi' and the trial court passed an order on 7.7.1988 to deliver the same in his custody. this order was passed under section 451 cr. p.c. the powers under section 451 cr. p.c. are of discretionary nature. in my view, no interference is called for in the above order, in exercise of the powers under section 482 cr. p.c., especially in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above.;petition dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....he is traced out. thereafter the sho made a report at police station rajgarh against harsahay, under section 406 ipc, making complaint therein that the ornaments, which were given in his 'supurdgi', were not being returned by him, as such, he committed the offence of breach of trust. after registration of the case, the ornaments were seized by the police from the possession of kailash chand s/o harsahay. the police submitted a challan in the court of munsif and judicial magistrate against the petitioners under sections 406 and 411 ipc. the said case is still pending in the court of learned judicial magistrate, rajgarh. then the non- petitioner no.2 moved an application that the articles/ornaments be given in his 'supurdgi' and the trial court passed an order on 7.7.1988 to deliver the same in his custody. this order was passed under section 451 cr. p.c. the powers under section 451 cr. p.c. are of discretionary nature. in my view, no interference is called for in the above order, in exercise of the powers under section 482 cr. p.c., especially in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above. this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

N.L. Tibrewal, J.

1. This petition is directed against t he order dated June 20, 1990 of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar in criminal revision No. 7/89 refusing to set-aside the order dated 7.7.88 of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh.

2. I need not go into the details of the case, as this petition being virtually against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, who has given the articles of the ornaments in 'supurdgi' of non-petitioner No.2 in exercise of the powers Under Section 451 Cr. P.C.

3. The said articles were seized by the police in Criminal case No. 14/23.1.84, registered Under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. With regard to the said case, a report was made by the petitioner Kailash Chand alleging that in the night of January 20, 1984, theft of ornaments of the non-petitioner No.2 was committed by committing house breaking by night.

4. It is alleged that after the seizure of the ornaments, they were handed-over in 'supurdgi' of Harsahay. However, the police submitted a final report in the case, than the non- petitioner Chhaganlal moved an application in the court of the learned Magistrate with a prayer that the ornaments, seized by the police, should be made available to him. On this application a direction was given by the learned Magistrate to S.H.O., Rajgarh on April 28, 1984 to return the ornaments to non- petitioner No.2. It appears that non-petitioner then made a complaint in the court against the SHO that he wanted to obtain his signatures on a receipt, showing return of ornaments, without returning the same. The court gave notice of this application to SHO, Rajgarh. In reply of the notice he replied that the ornaments were given in 'supurdgi' of Harsahay, who was not traceable and the ornaments shall be obtained from him when he is traced out. Thereafter the SHO made a report at police station Rajgarh against Harsahay, Under Section 406 IPC, making complaint therein that the ornaments, which were given in his 'supurdgi', were not being returned by him, as such, he committed the offence of breach of trust. After registration of the case, the ornaments were seized by the police from the possession of Kailash Chand S/o Harsahay. The police submitted a challan in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate against the petitioners Under Sections 406 and 411 IPC. The said case is still pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh. Then the non- petitioner No.2 moved an application that the articles/ornaments be given in his 'Supurdgi' and the trial court passed an order on 7.7.1988 to deliver the same in his custody. This order was passed Under Section 451 Cr. P.C. The powers Under Section 451 Cr. P.C. are of discretionary nature. In my view, no interference is called for in the above order, in exercise of the powers Under Section 482 Cr. P.C., especially in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above. This petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1991 Same Parties Kailash Chand and anr. vs State of Rajasthan and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.L. Tibrewal, J.

Criminal