Paviter Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

Paviter Singh petitioner alongwith one Manmohan Singh, who has since died were sent up for trial for offences under Sections 326 and 392 IPC in respect of FIR No. 29 dated 9.1.1986 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar.

The petitioner and his coaccused were chargesheeted and some evidence was recorded. The complainant had earlier moved an application for commitment of the case under Section 397 IPC. The application was, however, dismissed by the Magistrate on 28.4.1986. Thereafter, charges were armed and some evidence was recorded. On 9.11.1990 an application was moved by APP making a request that the case be committed to the Court of Sessions, as offence madeout was under Section 397 IPC. On the basis of this application, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 24.11.1990. This case was entrusted to the Court of Shri H.S. Bhalla, Additional Session Judge, who framed charges under Section 392 and 397 IPC. The petitioner, in this Criminal Miscellaneous has come to this Court, for quashing of the commitment order and the charges framed.

Shri H.S. Sandhu, learned Senior Advocate urges that Section 397 is not attracted to the facts of the case as the petitioner was not armed with any weapon and no injury had been caused by him to Jaswant Singh at the time of the alleged occurrence. In the FIR, Jaswant Singh had made allegations of causing injuries to him with Dattar by Manmohan Singh while he was in the company of his coaccused Paviter Singh. It was further alleged that both Manmohan Singh and Paviter Singh had taken away a cycle, blanket gloves, shoes, watch and a purse containing Rs. 275/. He had also disclosed that the motive for crime was that Manmohan Singh and Paviter Singh suspected him for having outraged the modesty of their sister.

Section 397 reads as follows :

"If, at the time of committing robbery or decoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."

The scope of the Section was examined by their Lordships of Court in 1975 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 336 in Shri Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration and their Lordships observed that the term "offender" as contained in Section 397 is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon.

I thus accept the arguments of learned counsel that the present petitioner was not liable for Section 397 IPC and since his coaccused had already died and was not to be tried for offence under Section 397, the order of commitment was bad in law.

I hereby quash the order of commitment along with the consequent proceedings and direct that on the next date of hearing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge will send the file back to the Magistrate with the direction to the parties to appear on the date to be fixed before him. Since the case is quite old its trial be expedited.

JUDGMENT accordingly