Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

HC for curbing menace of stolen goods’ purchase

Tribune News Service Chandigarh, August 23 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for curbing the menace of purchasing stolen goods after making it clear that the menace was affecting the society at large. Describing people purchasing stolen articles...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 23

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for curbing the menace of purchasing stolen goods after making it clear that the menace was affecting the society at large. Describing people purchasing stolen articles as “perpetrators”, the Bench made it clear that they were behind the surge in the offence of thefts.

Advertisement

The ruling by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari of the high court came on a petition filed by a scrap dealer allegedly indulging in the sale and purchase of stolen articles. “People like the petitioner, who purchase stolen articles, in fact, are the perpetrators behind surge in offence of thefts, inasmuch as they facilitate easy and smooth sale of the stolen articles. This menace is affecting the society at large and needs to be curbed,” the Bench ruled.

The matter was placed before Justice Tiwari after the accused moved the court seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in a theft case registered on August 19, 2023, initially under Section 379 of the IPC at Division No.2 police station in Jalandhar District Police Commissionerate. Certain other offences under the provisions of the IPC were added subsequently.

Advertisement

His counsel during the course of hearing submitted that the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR. In fact, his name surfaced for the first time in the disclosure statement of a co-accused after which the petitioner was been arrayed as an accused in the FIR. Appearing before the Bench, the counsel added that the investigating agency was not seized of any cogent evidence indicative of the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged crime except the disclosure statement.

After going through the arguments and the documents, Justice Tiwari asserted the case record revealed that the petitioner was a scrap dealer, “who prima facie indulges in the sale and purchase of stolen articles”. Besides this, the petitioner was involved in three more criminal cases involving commission of similar offence. The stolen articles’ recovery, too, was yet to be carried out. As such, his custodial interrogation was required.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper