VIJENDRA VIJAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 397 CrPC is directed against an order dated 4-9-85 of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi (Sri Pratap Singh) under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 transferring a case against the applicant under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi for the applicant's trial.

(2.) IT appears that one Sheo Nath Singh had lodged a first information report against the 3 known persons and one unknown person for committing murder of Sukhendra Singh and Sunil Kumar Singh on 18-8-83 at about 8 A. M. and in the same transaction for committing robbery of rifle No. 8042 of deceased Sukhendra Singh. The looted rifle is said to have been recovered from the unlawful possession of the applicant Vijendra Vijai on 5-10-83 at 4.30 A. M. by the police officer investigating the crime of murder and robbery. The applicant obviously did not carry any licence for the rifle and consequently a case under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was registered against him. He was also considered by the Investigating Officer to have been involved in the murder of Sukhendra Singh and Sunil Kumar Singh and consequently the applicant was not only included as an accused in the charge-sheet for the said murders but was also separately charge-sheeted for illicit possession of the rifle of one of the deceased.

(3.) SRI Imtiaz Murtaza, the learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the committal of the case under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was made under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere with that committal in exercise of the powers under Section 228 of the Code. It was next urged that the acquittal or conviction of the applicant in the case under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was bound to effect the result of the case under Section 302/394 IPC and there could be a conflict of findings if the 2 cases were to be tried separately by ,2 courts; hence in any case, the order transferring the case under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial was not proper and was likely to cause injustice.