ABDUL QAYYUM AKHTAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to quash the order of framing charges on the ground that supplementary charge-sheet could not have been made the basis, being against the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr. P.C., for framing the said charges.

(2.) Contextual facts depict that on September 13, 1995 at 10.00 p.m. one Ghayasuddin lodged a written report at Police Station Ramganj Jaipur with the averments that his brother Mohd. Khalid and uncle Qamruddin after taking their evening meals were strolling along the road leading to Phuta-khura, when a mob of 150-200 persona appeared from the side of Rehmaniya Masjid and one of them Abdul Qayyum Akhtar (petitioner No. 1) exhorted them saying that they (Qamruddin and Mohd. Khalid) should be given the account of the R.C. Centre, where upon one Haider Ali attacked Qamruddin with a knife and when Mohd. Khalid rushed to rescue of his uncle he was also attacked by Shokat who caused knife-injuries to him. Thereafter other persons namely, Abdul Hameed, Nasiruddin, Jawahar, Liyaqat, Farid and Abdul Hal also caused injuries to the two injured. On this report a case No. 359/95 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 120-B, IPC. Later on Section 302, IPC was also added. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet No. 106/96 against ten accused persons namely, Haider Ali, Mohd. Farced, Mohd. Yusuf, Jameel Ahmed, Abdul Hameed, Liyaqat Ali, Bashiruddin, Aijaz, Shokat Ali and Nasiruddin was filed. But the investigation against petitioners Abdul Qayyum Akhtar and Abdul Hai was kept pending under Sec. 173(8), Cr. P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, Sati Niwaran and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur bearing Sessions Case No. 106/96. As many as 22 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of which Ghayasuddin (P.W. 1), Islamuddin (P.W. 2), Amiruddin (P.W. 3), Darakhshan Parveen (P.W. 4), Jamaluddin (P.W. 5), Aslam (P.W. 7) and Umarddin (P.W. 8) deposed that they had not witnessed the occurrence. All these witnesses were declared hostile. Motbirs of recovery were also declared hostile. On hearing final submissions, learned Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated July 31, 1997 acquitted all ten accused persons. It so appears that after about two years of the judgment of acquittal i.e. on June 9, 1999 the supplementary charge-sheet bearing No. 41/99 was filed implicating the petitioners Abdul Qayyum Akhtar and Abdul Hai, against whom the investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. When the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, a request was made to drop the proceedings but the learned trial Judge did not accede to the request and vide order dated April 20, 2000 framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC. Against this order that the present action of filing misc. petition has been resorted to by the petitioners.

(3.) Mr. Z. A. Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently canvassed that in the matter where the Investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C., supplementary charge-sheet could not be filed on the basis of that evidence which was already available in the diary. If that evidence was found insufficient at one point of time, then how it could have been made the basis for filing the chargesheet afterwards. Reliance is placed on Nooruddin v. State of Rajasthan (1998) 2 Raj Cri C 116, Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration (1996) 3 Crimes 85 (SC) and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 Crimes 1 (Pun) & Hry).