ISHODANAND BISWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications in revision have been heard together and arise out of facts of one common transaction in the following circumstances:

(2.) On 20-9-1951, an armed dacoity was committed by a number of persons involving the loss of a huge amount of cash from the United Commercial Bank at Deoghar. The raiders were alleged to have been armed with pistols and revolvers. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 911 of 1953, namely, Mihir Kumar Das, Sukhranjan Choudhry, Bimal Dutt and Kunjlal Chatterji, were arrested by the police in that connection and were sent up for the offence of dacoity. Petitioner Ishodanand Biswas, hpwever, of Criminal Revision No. 909 of 1953 was charged under Section 412 and Section 120-B, Penal Code. On 22-3-1952, the proceedings for commitment in respect of these charges and that under Section 19(f), Arms Act were transferred to the same Magistrate who on 9-6-1952, committed the accused persons to the Court of Session in respect of the two charges, one relating to dacoity, criminal conspiracy and receiving property, stolen in course of dacoity, and the other commitment was in respect of the accused persons being in illegal possession of fire-arms, thus having committed an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act. On 26-7-1952, the two trials, one under the Arms Act and the other for dacoity, were ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, to be taken up as analogous, but on 18-11-1952, an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor to split up the two trials. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly proceeded to take up Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1952 in which the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 911 of 1953 were convicted of the offence of dacoity and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each. Ishodanand Biswas, however, was acquitted of the charge of having received stolen property, removed in course of dacoity, and also of the charge of having entered into a conspiracy with the other accused persons to commit the dacoity. The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the accused persons on the charge of dacoity, also passed an order in respect of Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1952 making reference to this Court that commitment in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1952 be quashed. This Court heard the reference but was not satisfied that it was a fit case in which commitment in respect of the offence disclosed under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act be quashed. The reference was accordingly discharged. These two applications were thereafter filed in this Court by the accused persons, Criminal Revision No. 909 of 1953 having been filed on behalf of Ishodanand Biswas and Criminal Revision No. 911 of 1953 having been filed by the remaining four persons. The accused persons, as I have said above, pray that the commitment of the petitioners for the offence' under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act be quashed by this Court

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the commitment of the petitioners for the offence under the Arms Act is illegal inasmuch as all of them would be put up on trial in respect of facts and allegations which would constitute the offence under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act and these were the identical facts which were also pressed by the prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1952. Ishodanand Biswas was acquitted and other petitioners were, no doubt, convicted of dacoity but whether acquittal or conviction, the trial of the petitioners on the identical set of facts is not sustainable in view of Section 403, Criminal P. C. He has also drawn our attention to a finding of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1952 in which he made certain observations with regard to whether Ishodanand Biswas could be held liable for being in possession of stolen properties kept in the room of a house which did not belong 'to him and was, in fact, the house of an' organization known as Deoghar Satsang run by Sri Anukul Chandra Thakur. Section 403, Criminal P. C., no doubt, provides in Sub-section (1) as follows :