The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code related to cheating, criminal breach of trust, and theft in determining the charges against the accused.

Jaspal Singh, J.

1. Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated December 22, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the trial court has been directed to frame charge against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 407, 379, 120-B IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that instant case stands registered on the basis of statement of complainant – Jeet Singh (respondent No.4), who has alleged that he is working under a registered forest contractor Rajinder Singh Chandel to look after his work at village Masaur, P.O. Kuthera, Tehsil Ghumarwin, Bilaspur (H.P.). They sent Khari heart wood of 4.8885 cubic meter amount to Rs. 4,50,000/- to M/s Chandan Wood Product on January 16, 2012 through truck bearing registration No. HP-24A-7595 belonging to Mustak Ali, being driven by Hem Raj. He also sent his munshi Satish Kumar with the truck. Satish Kumar informed him that on January 17, 2012 at about 2:30 AM, when they reached near village Saha, a Tavera car stopped in front of their vehicle. There were three persons. Two persons in civil dress came out and asked them to show the documents. Munshi Satish Kumar showed all the documents of permitted goods. They snatched the documents and asked munshi to accompany them in their vehicle to police station. Out of the aforesaid two persons, one sat in the truck and asked the driver to follow their vehicle. Thereafter, they left munshi at Panchkula main road and asked him to reach police station, Panchkula at 10:00 AM for release of the truck including goods. He went to Police Post, Sector 2, Police Station, Sectors 5, 10 and Chandi Mandir but could not find the truck. He came to know that police officials did not seize any vehicle. On his statement, FIR was registered. Accused Hem Raj and Roop Lal were arrested and after completion of investigation, final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented. Later on accused Rajinder and Ashok Kumar were also arrested and supplementary challan was presented.

3. During the course of arguments on charge, counsel for the complainant argued that total six persons were involved in the incident as per disclosure statement dated November 27, 2012 suffered by accused Roop Lal. Co-accused Pankaj and Vipin were yet to be arrested. Separate proclamation proceedings were initiated against them.

4. The trial court found that though, accused were booked under Sections 406, 420, 407, 379, 120-B IPC, however, from the perusal of challan, accompanying documents and contentions raised by the State as well as counsel for complainant, a prima facie case under Section 395 IPC is made out, which is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Therefore, the lower court committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated December 17, 2014.

5. The Additional Sessions Judge, Amabla, while discussing Sections 383, 390, 391 and 395 IPC, came to the conclusion that alleged crime committed by the accused do not come within the domain of Section 395 IPC, rather accused committed an act of cheating by impersonation pretending themselves to be police officials under hatching criminal conspiracy with an act of criminal breach of trust and theft by taking possession of truck loaded with wooden without using any type of force on a public road and thus, no case under Section 395 IPC is made out. The court found that a prima facie case for commission of offence under Sections 406, 420, 407, 379, 120-B IPC is made out against the accused, to which, they are required to be charge-sheeted. Consequently, the case file was remitted to the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class with the direction to frame charges against accused for commission of aforesaid offences of Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the final report and accompanying documents reveals that prima facie case under Section 395 IPC is made out against the accused persons. Additional Se