TAMAL ROY BARDHAN Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., the order dated 12.06.12 delivered in Criminal Revision 11(3)/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala has been challenged. To place the requisite facts, it will be apposite to state that on the basis of the written ejahar dated 28.07.2009 lodged by one Assistant Sub -Inspector of police, Jirania P.S. case No. 43 of 2009 under Sec. 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act was registered and having observed the complicity of the petitioner in the said case he was arrested allegedly with the arms. After the investigation was complete, the final police report chargesheeting the petitioner under Sec. 25(i)(A), 25(i)(B) and 25(1)(c) of the Arms act was fled. The District Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, by his order dated 29.03.2010, Annexure -2 to this petition, after due verification and appreciation of the materials placed before him has accorded sanction under Sec. 39 of the Arms Act to prosecute the petitioner.

(2.) At the time of the discussion of the charge the defence contended that no other charge can be framed against the accused beyond Sec. 25(i)(a). No charge can be framed under Ss. 25(1c) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act. The plea that is raised is centred around that for implicating any one under Sec. 25(1 -c) of the Arms Act, the notification declaring an area as the disturbed area must exist as pre -requisite. As the notification has not been placed with the case records, the charge under the said Sec. cannot be framed. To rebut such submission, the prosecution submitted the copy of the notification bearing No. F.22(2) -PD/2002 issued by the Home Department, Govt. of Tripura. Thus, the Judicial Magistrate First Class by the order dated 16.06.2011 discarded that plea of discharge, observing that:

(3.) Thus, the charge against the petitioner was proposed to be framed under Sec. 25(1B)(a) and (1 -c) of the Arms Act, 1959. Being aggrieved by that order dated 16.06.2011, the petitioner fled a revisional application questioning the legality of the said order, under Sec. 397 of the Cr.P.C. in the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, being Crl.Rev.11(3) of 2011. By the said revision, the same plea was reiterated. But one additional plea was also raised emphasizing that no previous sanction of the District Magistrate was obtained. What is gathered from the records is that the ground of objection raised in the revision petition in the form of additional plea is that even though no specific sanction was granted, the charge was proposed to be framed. The said criminal revision was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura Agartala. By the judgment and order dated 12.06.2012 the said revisional application was disposed of observing that: