REOTI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is connected with criminal Appeal No. 848 and I propose to deliver a consolidated judgment in both appeals. It appears that Pt. Harsarup, Sub- Inspector of village Chandpur was conducting an inquiry in connexion with a cattle theft in village Ismailpur on 2 May, 1932. It became necessary for him at one stage of the inquiry to send for the chaukidar and the chaukidar was accordingly sent for. There was some delay in the arrival of the chaukidar and on questioning the chaukidar the latter replied that he had gone to wash his hands and face near a tube well where he came across three suspicious persons who on coming to know that the Sub-Inspector was in the village walked away from the place in a suspicious manner. The Sub-Inspector, when he got this information, in company with certain villagers who were with him proceeded towards the tube-well and this party saw three persons going ahead at a distance of about a furlong or so. These three persons when asked to stop did not stop but wanted to run away and therefore they were pursued. Two of them were caught but the third increased his speed with the result that the pursuers also increased their speed. The person who was running away then fired several shots at the pursuers and the evidence is that these shots were aimed on the Sub-Inspector or some other definite member of pursuing party. He was ultimately arrested and a loaded revolver was recovered from his person. There were three empty and two live cartridges in the chambers of the revolver. This man was Reoti.

(2.) Upon these facts Reoti, the appellant before me, was charged under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The gravamen of the offence so far as this charge is concerned was that he fired at the pursuing party and if any one of them had been killed the accused would have been guilty under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The accused had no licence for the said revolver and therefore in a separate trial he was charged under the Arms Act. The gravamen of the offence therein lies in the fact that he was in possession of an arm without a licence. The revolver itself has been proved to be stolen property and therefore the accused was charged in a separate trial under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. The gravamen of the offence in connexion with that charge lies in the fact that he was in possession of stolen property knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen. He has been convicted in all the three trials and the sentence passed upon him is four years under Section 307, Penal Code, one year under the Arms Act, two years under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. All these sentences have been made; to run consecutively, the consequence being that for facts which might to a certain extent be said to be parts of the same transaction the accused has been convicted in three different trials and sentenced to an aggregate term of seven years.

(3.) It has been argued before me that although under the law it may be permissible to charge him under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and one out of the other two offences, it is not permissible to charge him under the Arms Act as well as under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and the accused is not liable to be punished twice inasmuch as the act of omission which constitutes the offence under these two enactments is the same and reliance is placed on Section 26, General Clauses Act. I am unable to agree with this contention. The act or omission which constitutes the offence under the Arms Act is the possession of the revolver without a licence; the act or omission which constitutes an offence under Section 411, I.P.C., is the possession of an article which is stolen with the knowledge or belief that it is stolen. It is immaterial that the article in both cases happens to be a revolver. The chief ingredient of the two charges has been explained before and the important point to be noted is that it is not the same act or omission which constitutes the offence under the two enactments. There is therefore no legal bar to the two trials, one under the Arms Act and the other under Section 411, Indian Penal Coded and the accused can be punished in both the trials.