KANWALPREET SINGH @ KANWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this criminal revision petition is to the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the petitioner alongwith his co -accused was ordered to be charge -sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 382, 411, 412 and 454 read with Section 34, IPC, as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel contends that a person can be charged for the offence punishable under Section 412, IPC, only when it is prima -facie established that he had dishonestly retained or was found in possession of the stolen property out of a dacoity. Notice of motion of the criminal revision petition was issued to the State of Punjab and in response thereof, Mr.R.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has put in appearance for the State.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments with regard to the framing of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 412, IPC, on the premise that according to the prosecution case itself, no dacoity was committed by the petitioner and his co -accused and they had not retained the stolen property out of dacoity, therefore, the ingredients of Section 412, IPC, are not attracted. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and Ors., 1991 1 RCR(Cri) 89.