Crl. Rev. No.3020 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: December 14, 2010. Crl. Rev. No.3020 of 2010 (O&M). Santokh Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. . Respondent *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.R.C.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner *** M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks the quashing of charge under Section 411 IPC, in FIR No.157, dated 02.12.2008, Police Station, Machhiwara, to the effect that 25 bags of stolen wheat were recovered from him on 04.12.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that one another FIR No.297 of 2008, under Sections 379 & 407 IPC, has been registered at Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala . . . 1 Crl. Rev. No.3020 of 2010 (O&M) against Kabul Singh, Manjit Singh and Kamaljit Singh on the complaint of Mukesh Dhir, the accused in the said case are proclaimed offenders and the petitioner has been involved in this case merely on the basis of statement of Manjit Singh recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in another case registered at Sultanpur Lodhi, stating that the bags were unloaded at the house of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that in case the accused in the FIR No.79 of 2008, registered at Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi, are acquitted in case of theft, the petitioner cannot be convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC, because in the present FIR No.157, the allegations against the petitioner are that he was found in possession of stolen property which was the subject matter of FIR No.217 of 2008, registered at Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot seek the quashing of charges against him on the sole ground that the property will not be established to be stolen property in the another FIR. The offence alleged against the petitioner can certainly be tried as per the provisions of Section 181 (5) Cr.P.C., either at Samrala or at Sultanpur Lodhi. The petitioner has not challenged the launching of prosecution by the police of Police Station, Macchiwara and has also not sought the transfer of the case from Samrala to Kapurthala. In view of above circumstances, the charges . . . 2 Crl. Rev. No.3020 of 2010 (O&M) against the petitioner cannot be quashed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to take all the pleas in defence at an opportune time during trial to seek acquittal or to seek the benefit of doubt. Anything said in this order will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 14, 2010. rka . . . 3