Full Judgment
Milap Chand Jain, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13-11-86 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi whereby the petitioners have been charged of the offence under Section 403 I.P.C. They have been discharged of the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and under Section 110 of Land Customs Act under which the challan was presented. The charge is based on the statement of the Driver Iqbal, who has stated that the accused-petitioners told him that the silver was found by them so he may get the silver sold even in less price to which Iqbal refused.
2. It may be mentioned that the Investigating Officer came into the possession of some documents which revealed that the silver bars were of the Firm Choksi Rikhab Chand Ratanlal of Palanpur, and the silver was sent to Swroopchand Naya Bazar, Ajmer, Rikhabchand has also lodged a report on 17-4-86 at 9 p.m. at Police-Station City Railway, Palanpur, stating that silver bars were sent through the petitioners Suresh Kumar and Kaushik Kumar but they have not reached at Ajmer. The Vehicle in which the silver bars have been carried was a Taxi Ambassador Car No. RRT 7092. This vehicle was stopped in connection with checking going on against suspected terrorist at Shivganj, and in that search silver-bars were found.
3. It may be mentioned that from the documents it was clear that silver was not the stolen property. It was the property belonging to the aforesaid firm, which were sent to Ajmer and both the petitioners were the employees of that firm. The property i.e. the silver recovered was not the lost property which was found by the petitioners. It was the property delivered by the aforesaid firm to the petitioners for being carried to Ajmer. On the basis of the statement of Iqbal, even offence under Section 403, I.P.C. cannot be said to be prima facie made out if viewed in the light of the document and the version given by Rikhabchand in the court. Ratanlal Karta of the aforesaid joint family firm M/s. Rikhabchand Ratanlal has submitted an application alongwith an affidavit, according to which the present petitioner are the employees of his firm and according to him no offence was committed by them and the firm does not want to take any action nor any action can be taken against the petitioners.
4. Thus, considering the matter in its totality in my opinion, no offence under Section 403 I.P.C. is at all made out against the petitioners and the petitioners deserve to be discharged of the offence under Section 403 I.P.C.
5. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed, and the petitioners are discharged of the offence under Section 403 I.P.C.