Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17634 of 2011 ====================================================== Bishram Bhagat, son of Late Buddu Bhagat, resident of village - Dewaki, Kama Toli, P.S. – Ghaguhana, District - Gumla, Jharkhand. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Janardan Ram, son of Sankar Ram, village - Kurauni, P.S. – Korma, District - Seikhpura. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 13-12-2012 The present petition was filed against order dated 29.9.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, in Cr. Revision No. 82 of 2010, which was preferred against order of cognizance dated 15.2.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura, in Complaint Case No. 368(C) of 2009. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . The revision petition was rejected. From the order of Revisional Court it is evident that after filing of the revision petition, on behalf of the petitioner none had appeared to press the petition despite granting several adjournments. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge by detailed order has rejected the same. At the time of hearing it was informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order of cognizance and at Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17634 of 2011 (3) dt.13-12-2012 2/2 the stage of charge, discharge petition was filed, which too, was rejected, against which, a revision petition has been filed before the learned Sessions Judge and it is still pending. It has been submitted that the petitioner was at the relevant time Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and while executing attachment order he was made accused in connection with his official duty relating to execution of attachment order, which was issued by a competent court. A plea was taken that once petitioner was made accused on an allegation of commission of offence relating to discharge of official duty, it was mandatory on the part of Magistrate to see as to whether prosecution sanction was available on record before passing the order of cognizance. According to learned counsel for the petitioner no prosecution sanction was there, even then, order of cognizance was passed. Be that as it may, since discharge petition has been rejected and against that revision has been filed by the petitioner and same is pending before the Revisional Court, it would not be appropriate to pass any favourable order. The petition stands disposed of. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.