MADAN LAL Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMN )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that on 12th October, 1992 while Shri Baldev Raj Sharma who was employed as Senior Supervisor with the Super Bazar, Mansarover Park, Delhi was proceeding towards the United Commercial Bank, G.T. Road, Shahdara, he was waylaid and was robbed of Rs. 13,263.00. The persons accused of having robbed him of the said amount were stated to be none other but the present appellant and his companion. It was claimed that the appellant was armed with a knife and that the same was recovered while he was trying to make his escape good.

(2.) TO be fair enough to the learned counsel for the appellant he is pressing the appeal only on two grounds. Firstly, that the offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out and secondly that conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was bad as no knife was used in commission of the offence.

(3.) CAN it be said that the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code is made out? The evidence on the record goes to show that the knife was not used for the purpose of commission of offence by Madan Lal at all. It was only when the appellant was chased and overpowered that a knife was allegedly recovered from him. This would not attract Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. I do feel that under the circumstances even Section 27 of the Arms Act would also be not attracted. And, while I am on the question of knife, it may also be pointed out that no question was put to the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the alleged recovery of knife nor the knife was shown to him.