SANSAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated February 23, 2004 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Ajmer whereby charges under Ss. 9/51, 44, 48, 49, 49(b) and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 have been framed against the petitioner.

(2.) Contextual facts depict that on January 6, 2003 while one Balwan (co-accused) was travelling in Train No. 9616 Dn., Constables of Railway Police boarded the train at 10.30 PM. When the train got halted at station Mandel, the Constables found Balwan sitting in toilet gallery keeping a square carton of Cardboard under the right elbow. Seeing the police men Balwan felt uneasy. The constables became suspicious and asked Balwan to open the Carton which contained two skins of leopard. When the train reached Vijay Nagar around 1.00 AM, Balwan made to detrain alongwith leopard skins. FIR was lodged at Police Station Bhilwara. In the course of investigation Balwan disclosed that he has carrying leopard skin for the petitioner. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Ajmer against Balwan and eight other accused persons including the petitioner.

(3.) Calling in question the impugned order it is urged by learned Senior Counsel that course adopted by the learned Magistrate in dealing with the case of the petitioner on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused is inconsistent with the consensus of judicial opinion in regard to the true scope and effect of Sec. 30 of the Evidence Act, which provides that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other persons as well as against the person who makes such confession. Learned Senior Counsel took me to various judicial decisions and canvassed that the learned Magistrate committed serious illegality in framing the charges.