S. Talapatra, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC), the order dated 16.07.2011 as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Revision No. 21 (3) of 2010, whereby the challenge as projected against the order for framing of charge against the petitioners was shot down. The prosecution against the petitioners herein was launched at the instance of one Kshirmohan Debnath who filed an ejahar to the Officer- in-charge, East Agartala Police Station, alleging amongst other things that the petitioners and their relative, one Sajal Sarkar fell down and had stolen away two Gamai trees from his land. The land from where those two trees were allegedly taken away was, in the occupation of the informant and was duly parted by the original owner. Thereafter, the petitioners and that Sajal Sarkar kept the said trees in the house of one Swapan Ghosh of the locality. The informant also suspected involvement of that Swapan Ghosh in the alleged incident of theft. The informant assessed the value of the trees at Rs.1,000/- approximately. On the basis of the said ejahar dated 28.07.2008, East Agartala P.S. Case No. 115/08, under Sections 379 of IPC was registered. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed on having a prima facie case against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet, stated in the brief fact of the case that in course of investigation the previous IO also issued a letter to the Forest Range Officer, Sadar, to furnish the details regarding some wooden logs which were seized from Baldakhal, the place of occurrence of the case. The Forest Range Officer intimated that as no claimant appeared before them, the Forest Department confiscated the same. The previous IO also examined and recorded the statement of the Forest Range Officer. The charge sheet was filed vide East Agartala P.S. C/S. No. 32/ 2009, dated 07.03.2009 under Section 379 of IPC against the present petitioners by the Investigating Officer who completed the further investigation. The other accused person was not sent up for trial as no materials were available against him during the investigation. On taking cognizance, the case was taken up for framing of charge. On 30.03.2010, the said Judicial Magistrate took up the matter for hearing on framing of the charge. In the hearing, learned defence counsel raised a question that the informant was not the owner of the land at the relevant point of time and no possession was not taken by the informant from the original land owner. He further submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. The Judicial Magistrate discarded the said contention holding that there is no legal requirement that only the registered owner can lodge the ejahar unless the alleged offence is covered by the provisions of Sections 195 to 199 of Cr. P.C. Relevant part of the observations of the Judicial Magistrate is excerpted hereunder:

In the said statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. of the original land owner. Keshab Ghosh, I find that the said witness categorically stated that before selling his land, he has not sold out the 2(two) trees in question to anybody. The other witnesses, in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C., though have stated that the original land owner sold out the 2 (two) trees In question for Rs.1,100/- to the accused persons, but in my opinion, at this stage there is no evidence before the court to rely on the statements given either by the said witnesses or by the original land owner. This observation also applied to the contention raised by Ld. Defence Counsel that the seized goods do not tally with the statement of the complainant given in the FIR. It would be pertinent to add here that the letter addressed to the O.C., East Agartala PS by the Forest Range Officer. Sadar Range, Agartala, as present in the case record, does not mention anyt