BISHNU SINGH Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Section 402 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing the orders dated 3.3.03 and 19.9.03 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Sessions Case No. 85/01 thereby framing charge under Sections 25/27 of ARMS ACT, 1959 against the petitioner and rejecting his application under Section 231 (2) of the Code for deferring cross-examination of P.W. 3 till examination of four other witnesses.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that against the petitioner charge sheet under Section 302/34 of the Indian penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I. P. C.) was filed after completing investigation and on 10.10.01 learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as ACMM) after taking cognizance of offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, transferred the case to learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court for disposal. Copies were supplied to the accused on 19.11.01 and thereafter the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions i.e., before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. Learned Chief Judge transferred the case to the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and the learned Judge on 30.1.02 framed charge under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court and the learned Magistrate sent the supplementary charge sheet to the learned trial Court. The original charge sheet was submitted on 10.10.01 and the supplementary charge sheet was filed on 15.5.02 i.e., after expiry of 90 days from the date of arrest of accused. Charge sheet submitted under Section 25/ 27 of the ARMS ACT, 1959 is independent charge under specific Act and it is triable by Magistrate.

(3.) He further contended that the Court of Sessions cannot take cognizance of any offence unless the case is committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court did not commit the case under Sections 25/ 27 of the ARMS ACT, 1959 on the basis of supplementary charge sheet. Accordingly, Sessions Court cannot take cognizance of offence under Sections 25/27 of ARMS ACT, 1959 and framing of charge against the petitioner under the said sections by order dated 3.3.03 is bad in law and should be set aside.The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, no jurisdiction to take cognizance for alleged offence under Sections 25/27 of the ARMS ACT, 1959 and framing of charge under these sections should be set aside.