Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.724 of 2008 With Interlocutory Application No. 1465 of 2008 ====================================================== Vikash Kumar Thakur, son of Suresh Kumar Thakur, resident of village Pokhraira, P.S. Mofassil, District Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Madhukant Thakur, son of late Yugeshwar Thakur 3. Santosh Kumar Thakur, son of Madhukant Thakur 4. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, son of Madhukant Thakur 5. Vinod Kumar Thakur, son of Dashrath Thakur 6. Satya Narayan Thakur, son of Dasrath Thakur, no. 2 to 6 are residents of village Pokhraira, P.S. Mufassil, District Samastipur. .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate Mr. Krishsna Nandana Kumar, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Umanath Mishra, Addl.P.P. For Opp. Party nos. 2 to 6: Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Surya Kant Mishra, Advocare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 10 28-08-2012 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1465 of 2008 After having heard learned counsels for the parties, though prayer is being strongly opposed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 that the delay has not been properly explained, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.724 of 2008 (10) dt.28-08-2012 2 / 5 2 yet for the reasons disclosed in this interlocutory application that the petitioner was undergoing treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi, prayer for condonation of delay is hereby allowed. The limitation in filing the main criminal revision application is condoned. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. Re. Cr. Revision No. 724 of 2008 The petitioner, the informant of the criminal case, has approached this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short ‘Cr.P.C’), questioning the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.4.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 414 of 2000/16 of 2002 by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Samastipur, acquitting the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 6 for charges under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a very short question for assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal. It is contended that the petitioner lodged a criminal case against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 for offences under [STATUTE] . On close of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, whereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions giving rise to Sessions Case No. 414 of 2000. On transfer of the case, the learned trial court framed charges, as indicated above, against accused opposite party nos. 2 to 6 on 15.7.2003. It is the specific case of the petitioner that despite framing of charge, at no point of time summons was ever served either on the informant or any other witnesses,- official or non-official, named in the charge Patna High Court CR. REV. No.724 of 2008 (10) dt.28-08-2012 3 / 5 3 sheet. Even warrant of arrest was never executed. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, without complying the mandate of Section 62 Cr.P.C. or any other provisions contained in chapter VI of Cr. P.C., the evidence of the prosecution was arbitrarily closed by the learned trial court without recording the evidence of even a single witness and thereafter by the impugned judgment, the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have been illegally acquitted. According to the learned counsel, there has been violation of procedure prescribed under law and, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is fit to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its revisiuonal jurisdiction and the matter is fit to be remitted to the learned trial court for de novo trial. By order dated 2.11.2010, lower court records were called for which have been received. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have fairly submitted that from perusal of the entire order sheet of the learned trial court, it does not appear that summons was ever served upon any of the witnesses. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 6 contends that, in fact, summons was issued but there is no service report. According to him, the Public Prosecutor was obliged to get the summons served and secure the attendance of the witnesses. The Public Prosecutor having failed to discharge his duties, the benefits have rightly been given to the accused persons acquitting them from the charges. After having heard the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment as also on examination of the lower court Patna High Court CR. REV. No.724 of 2008 (10) dt.28-08-2012 4 / 5 4 records, it is apparent that though orders were passed by the learned trial court for issuance of summons against the witnesses, but there is nothing on record to show that summons was ever served upon any of the witnesses either official or non-official including the informant. It further appears that though orders were passed by the learned trial court for issuance of warrant of arrest against the witnesses, but the same were never executed. In the aforesaid factual background, there appears to be a procedural irregularity having been committed by the learned trial court for closing the prosecution evidence. The learned trial court was obliged to see that summonses, in fact, were actually issued and actually served upon the witnesses. But apparently, that has not been done in the present case. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment and order dated 24th April, 2007 passed in Se

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.