AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''CrPC'') against the order dated 19.01.2017 passed by Special Judge, (dacoity), Gohad District Bhind in Case No. 20/2016 (docoity) whereby the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 25 (1) (1-a) & 27 (02) of Arms Act read with Section 11/13 of Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Evam Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (for brevity ''MPDVPK Act'') have been framed against the applicant.
As per prosecution case, on 30.06.2016, at about 10 pm, while checking the vehicles, Police stopped a motor cycle by which two persons were going. When Police stopped the motor cycle, then the driver of motor cycle ran away by throwing the motor cycle. Police caught the second person and recovered fourteen 315 bore country made kattas along with live cartridges from his possession for which he was not having any license. Police arrested the applicant and registered a case bearing crime No. 152/2016 at Police Station- Gohad Chourhah, District-Bhind, for the offences punishable under section 25 (1) (a) and 27 of Arms and section 11/13 of MPDVPK, Act. During the investigation, Police arrested the co-accused-Mahendra Sharma also. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The trial Court framed the charges against the applicant for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 25 (1) (1-a) & 27 (02) of Arms Act read with Section 11/13 MPDVPK, Act.
The order of framing the charge under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK, Act is under challenge in the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations made against the applicant is not enough to connect him within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of MPDVPK, Act. Therefore, the trial Court has wrongly framed the charge under Section 11/13 of MPKVPK, Act against him. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.
To the contrary, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the aforesaid prayer and supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of this revision petition.
Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the copy of chargesheet available on record. Before dealing with the question of determination, it is apt to note Section 2 (f) of MPDVPK, Act which provides as under: 2.(f) "specified offence" means,-
(i) an offence specified in the schedule committee in relation to an area declared under section 3 being an offence forming part or arising out of/or connected with the commission of dacoity or kidnapping;
THE SCHEDULE
(i) Offences punishable under sections 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 325, 326, 327, 329, 331, 333, 363, 364, 365, 368, 369, 386, 387, 400 and 2 (435) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860);
(ii) kidnapping or abduction for ransom;
The definition of "specified offence" contained in section 2 (f) of the Act makes it clear that a specified offence is one which is mentioned in the schedule and which has nexus with docoity or kidnapping. The definition makes two conditions necessary for making an offence a specified offence. These conditions are : (i) that the offence as mentioned in the Schedule must have been committed in relation to a docoity and kidnapping affected area, and (ii) the same must be forming part or arising out of or connected with, the commission of docoity or kidnapping.
From perusal of charge-sheet, it appears that the Police had recovered fourteen 315 bore county made kattas along with live cartridges from the possession of applicant for which he was not having any license which is punishable under section 25 (1) (a) and 27 of Arms Act, but charge-sheet does not indicate that the applicant carrying the aforesaid arms in respect of the commission of docoity or kidnapping. Therefore, charge under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK, Act is not made out against the present applicant.
Taking this view of the matter, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed and the charge framed against the applicant under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK, Act is hereby setaside and the applicant is discharged from the charge punishable under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK, Act and so far as other charges are concerned, I find that no interference is called for. Thus, the trial relating to other charges will continue in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and disposed of.