INDERDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, by his order dated March 18, 1974 has recommended to this Court that that the order, of the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarh, whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner Inderdeo Singh Yadav under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be quashed

(2.) THE facts of this case briefly stated are that the accused, who was a member of the Central Reserve Police, was found in possession of two full and one empty cartridge of 303 bore when his luggage was searched by the Central Receive Police officials. He was prosecuted before the Assistant Commandant, Central Reserve Police, who exercising powers of Second Class Magistrate, convicted him under Section 10 of the C R P P, Act, 1949. There -after the police presented a challan against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act on the same set of facts. The accused made an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate that having been convicted on the same facts he could not be tried again. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the Assistant Commandant did not have the power to try the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved by this order the accused preferred a revision -application which came to be considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, and he has made the recommendation indicated earlier. After citing seven decided cases the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution wants to prosecute the accused again on the same set of facts for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and it was not permissible under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) SECTION 10 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, reads : 'Every member of the Force who - (n) is guilty of any act or omission which, though not specified in this Act, is prejudicial to good order and discipline:shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three months' pay, or with both. Under Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, the Assistant Commandant exercised powers of a Second Class Magistrate. By his judgment dated December 27, 1972, he observed that a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before him which inter alia alleged that in the course of conducting a surprise check of kit and personal belongings of the accused Constable Inderdeo Singh Yadav the Board of officers found in the kit and personal belongings of the accused two rounds of 303, one empty case of 303 and one charger clip. The possession of these ammunitions was in contravention of the orders issued from authorities and the accused Constable Inderdeo Singh Yadav had committed an offence under Section 10(n) or the C R.P.P. Act, 1949. because it was prejudicial to the good order and discipline The accused pleaded guilty and and prayed for mercy and he was awarded, having regard to his 6 years and 5 months' service. 10 days' rigorous imprisonment. Subsequently a charge -sheet was submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate against Inderdoo Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the ground that he was found in possession of two full cartidges and one empty cartridge of 303 bore and one charger clip. Section 25 of the Arms Act provides for punishment against the possession or carrying of any ammunition in contravention of Section 3 of the said Act.