AJAYA MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'the Code') petitioners who are the accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 85/73 of 1997 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Khurda have prayed to quash the order dated 28-2-1997 of the trial Court by which learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charge against the petitioners for the offence under Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and S. 326 and 307/149, IPC.

(2.) It is alleged by the prosecution that on 21-4-93 at about 10 a.m. when the informant Siri Dei and a co-villager Buna Dei were tending cattle in and around the disputed cashew field, petitioners with many other (co-accused persons) came there with fire- arms and deadly weapons like Pharsa, Katuries and lathies, outraged modesty of the informant and on hearing her shout when her co-villagers came to the spot petitioners and the co-accused persons attacked and assaulted them by using the aforesaid weapons. That report of the informant was registered as Jankia P. S. Case No. 87/93 and C. K. Case No. 364 of 1993 in the Court of S.D.J.M. Khurda. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Ss.147/148/354/326/307/149 Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was submitted. Learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the said offences and as and when the accused persons were apprehended, they were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The above named petitioners were committed to the Court of Sessions to face their trial vide order dated 27-1-1997 of the Court of S.D.J.M. After commitment, on 28-2-97 learned Assistant Sessions Judge perused the records, passed the impugned order and accordingly framed charge against the petitioners for the offences in the manner already narrated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that taking cognizance of the offence and framing of the charge for the offences under Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is bad in law inasmuch as sanction as required under S. 39 of Arms Act was not obtained at any stage till submission of charge-sheet. He further argued that in the absence of any grievous injury framing of charge for the offence under S. 326, IPC is unwarranted and when there is no evidence in record to prima facie satisfy that there was an intention to kill, framing of charge for the offence under S. 307, IPC is equally fallacious.