JAGDEO YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 30.7.1999 by which cognizance of the offence has been taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) SOME facts are necessary to be stated for appreciating the points involved in this case. On the basis of an information given by the informant, Ram Charitar Yadava case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324. and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge -sheet was submitted on 23.1.1999 and on the same day cognizance was taken under those sections and summons were issued. Charge -sheet submitted is annexure -2 to this application. Sayeeda Khatoon Versus Bibi Sayeeda Tahira Nahid However, the informant being aggrieved by the conduct of the Investigating Officer in filing the charge -sheet under only those sections filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, who directed the Inspector of Police, Rosera to supervise the case. After supervision, of the case a supplementary charge -sheet was submitted on 28.2.1999 under the aforesaid sections including Sections 307 and 407 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27. of the Arms Act. The Supplementary charge -sheet dated 28.2.1999 is Annexure -4 to this application. On the basis of this supplementary charge -sheet the learned A.C.J.M. Rosera by the impugned order dated 30.7.1999 took cognizance of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27. of the Arms Act including the aforesaid sections under which cognizance was taken earlier.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that once cognizance has been taken by the Court on the basis of the first charge -sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, he could not have taken cognizance of offence under Section 307 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act on the basis of the supplementary charge -sheet. According to him, taking cognizance twice on same set of facts of supplementary charge -sheet is bad in law. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied on the decision reported in the case of The State V/s. Mehar Singh and others, 1974 Cri LJ 970 and Jago Singh and others V/s. The State of Bihar and another, BBCJ 1973 (1) 445. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has strongly contended that only because the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under certain Sections of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the first charge -sheet he is not debarred to take cognizance under other sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act on the basis of the supplementary charge -sheet.