NAND LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order, dated 24.8.1993 taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioners.

(2.) A First Information Report was lodged alleging inter alia, that on 20.8.1990 at about 8 a.m., while the informant was going alongwith his brother Ram Narayan Nayak, to participate in election at Bagaha Bazar as one of his brothers was a candidate for the post of Chairman. His brother was watching the election. Meanwhile, the accused persons took away the register and accordingly, the authority was informed for cancellation of the election. It is alleged that all the 11 accused persons surrounded him at Bazar and on the order of one Nand Lal Singh, all the accused persons armed with gun started indiscriminate firing as a result of which brother of the informant died on the spot. In the basis of the aforesaid allegation, Kanhauli PS Case No. 14/90 was registered as it appears from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 including other ancillary Sections of the Indian Penal Code against 11 accused persons. However, charge-sheet was not submitted under Sections 27 of the Arms Act for want of sanction of the authority. Copy of the charge-sheet is made Annexure-2 to this writ petition. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions being Sessions Trial No. 155/90. The trial Court on consideration of the materials on record acquitted all the accused persons of an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The judgment and order of the trial Court of the aforesaid case is made Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Subsequently, for the same offence separate case was registered, after obtaining sanction, under Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act being Kanhauli PS Case No. 15/90 against two of the accused, namely, petitioners 1 and 4, Nand Lal Singh and Mahesh Singh. A copy of the First Information Report is made Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 19.4.1994 has acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed under the aforesaid Sections of the Arms Act which is apparent from Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Since the investigation was pending against FIR named accused on submission of final form, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act by order dated 3.5.1992/4.5.1992 against all the accused persons which was challenged by filing petition being Cr. Rev. No. 180/92. The learned Judge set aside the order of cognizance of the alleged offence and remitted the case back for fresh consideration.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order taking cognizance on the ground that once the accused persons were put on trial and ultimately, were acquitted by a competent Court, subsequent proceeding for the same offence is not permissible in the eye of law. Learned counsel has placed the judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No. 155/90, wherefrom it is apparent that the learned Sessions Judge on consideration of evidence both, oral and documentary has acquitted all the accused persons by his order, dated 28.5.1992 (Annexure-3). Similarly, accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act by the trial Court vide his judgment and order dated 19.4.1994.