Crl.Rev.No.1912 of 2008 (O& M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1912 of 2008 (O& M). Decided on: February 11, 2010. Ishwar Dass Jhamb .. Petitioner VERSUS Niranjan Kataria and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.B.R.Vohra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Shubra Singh, DAG, Haryana. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing of the petition is condoned. Misc. application stands allowed. Charge under Section 379 IPC, was framed against the respondents. He had filed a revision petition against the order dated 04.04.2007, framing charge against him under Section 379 IPC. The revisional Court after going through the entire report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., and taking into consideration the evidence . . . 1 Crl.Rev.No.1912 of 2008 (O& M) collected during investigation to connect the respondents with the crime and observed as follows: - “It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that in the FIR there is not even name of single witness to this effect that he had seen the accused taking away the goods or belongings of the temple or the School or the articles which were handed over to the complainant by Naib Tehsildar receiver who was appointed in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the accused. It is also submitted that after about three years present report has been made which is vague one. It is also submitted that the complainant has already received the articles from the receiver and no objection whatsoever was lodged by him. It is also submitted that there is not even a single statement of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no evidence whatsoever against the accused so as to frame the charge. It is also submitted that the very complaint made by the complainant is vague,false and frivolous one.” Counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the articles had been taken away by the accused from the receiver, there is a presumption of theft under Section 379 IPC and that it is not necessary in the present case to prove the possession of stolen articles. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner . . . 2 Crl.Rev.No.1912 of 2008 (O& M) and gone through the order passed by the Court discharging the respondents. The revisional Court has taken into consideration the entire material on the record and opted to discharge the respondents on the ground that the allegations against the respondents are vague and that the FIR was lodged after a lapse of three years. The receiver from whose possession, the articles had been stolen and that the complainant has already received the articles from the receiver without any objection. It has also been observed that there is absolutely no statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to connect the respondents with the crime. In view of the well reasoned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order of discharge. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 11, 2010. rka . . . 3