ANWAR Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Anwar, is seeking quashing of the charge framed against him under Section 399 read with Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code (herein called 'the Code'). This charge along with the charge under the Arms Act was framed by Mr. J.D. K a pur, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, after hearing the parties on 18th May,1891.

(2.) In brief the prosecution case is that an Inspector of the Crime Branch, Delhi, received secret information that some armed dacoits belonging to Uttar Pradesh were going to assemble in a Gumti (wooden hut) of Burmah Shell Railway Siding, Jamuna Bridge, Delhi, at about 9 p.m. on 10th May, 1977, for the purpose of committing a dacoity .1 The Inspector formed a raiding party in which two public witnesses were associated. The party proceeded towards that Gumti and on the way another public witness was joined in the raiding party. That hut was surrounded by the raiding party. Some of its members including the Inspector without arousing any suspicion were able to reach the eastern window of the Gumti. They heard one of the dacoits while addressing one of his companions as Sukhpal questioning whether he (Sukhpal) being a new entrant would deceive them. At that Sukhpal replied that he was a 'mard' (he-man) and that he had come fully prepared. The members of the raiding party further heard a question being asked to another companion, namely, Puran, whether he had brought the 'kutta' (country-made pistol). Puran replied in affirmative. Thereafter, the raiding party entered the Gumti and apprehended the persons present inside it. The petitioner herein was one of them. From his custody a country made pistol and six cartridges were recovered. A country-made rifle was recovered from co-accused Sukhpal. Another country-made pistol was recovered from Puran; a knife was recovered from co-accused Ghanshyam; a torch was recovered from co-accused Jassan Alam and a lathi from Qayum accused. Another arm known as "Subblo" was recovered from co-accused Sukha.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that even if all the allegations as contained in the report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure and those contained in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the said Code are admitted to be true, no case is made out against the petitioner under Sections 399 and 402 of the Code.