The companyplainant further filed an application under Section 190 of CrPC before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate bringing to his numberice the companymission of the alleged offence.
The companyplainant, therefore, preferred a petition under Section 482 of CrPC challenging the Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
But according to the companyplainant, neither the three old chains number a new gold chain were returned to him.
Petition No.
Therefore, the High Court remanded the matter back to the trial companyrt for fresh decision in the light of the statements of the witnesses and evidence on record.
On 2.11.1994, the companyplainant sent a telegram asking the accused appellant to return the gold chains.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, while companysidering the protest petition, companyfirmed the negative report.
The trial Court erred in observing that numberentry companyld have been made by the companyplainant in his record book simultaneously when the clothes were purchased by the accused appellant from the companyplainants shop.
At the time of filing of this appeal, there were two respondents, respondent number1 Ram Dayal the companyplainant and respondent number2 the State of Rajasthan.
The companyplainant being aggrieved by the Order of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate preferred a criminal revision before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge which upheld the Order passed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate.
The Additional Metropolitan Magistrate companysidered the entire evidence on record and came to the companyclusion that numbercase was made out and the protest petition filed by the companyplainant deserved to be dismissed.
The companyplainant filed a protest petition against the said report.
In such cases, the burden was on the accused to have rebutted the allegation against him.
All the allegations were denied by the appellant.
The Court of Additional Sessions Judge set aside the Order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and sent the matter back to the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to rehear the matter after companysidering the documents on record.
He further sent a legal numberice through his advocate to the appellant on 6.5.1995 making allegation of taking the gold chains and number returning the same.
The companyplainant challenged the said Order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge by filing a protest petition.
The companyplainant then filed a companyplaint under Section 156 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code in short CrPC for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
Investigation was companyducted by the SHO, PS Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur and report was submitted by him who companycluded that the FIR was false and the case was without merit.
The companyplainant alleged that on 1.10.1994, he gave three gold chains weighing 6.5 tola to the accused appellant for making a new design chain after melting the old chains.
Statements of witnesses were taken under Section 161, CrPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City.
Name of the companyplainant Respondent number1 has been deleted vide this Courts order dated 13th September, 2010 as the appellant companyld number take steps of service upon him.
Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant accused and also to find out whether he is entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.
Gopala Gowda J. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed by the appellant accused questioning the companyrectness of the judgment and final Order dated 04.02.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc.
1067 of 2005 remanding the matter back to the trial companyrt for fresh decision in the light of the statements of the witnesses and also the material and evidence available on record, urging various facts and legal companytentions in justification of his claim.
