Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1630 (PAT)

Raghav Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-10-04

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. The petitioner herein who has been made to figure as the sole accused in Buxar (Town) P.S. Case No. 240 of 2006, G.R. No. 1317 of 2006 is aggrieved by and seeks the quashing of order dated 5.4.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar by which he has been pleased to reject the petition filed u/s. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge. 2. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of the self-statement of A.S.I., Narendra Mohan Jha recorded on 14.8.2006 inter alia stating that at about 10.30 P.M. on 13.8.2006 while he along with other police personnel were on night patrolling duty and in course thereof had reached near the Buxar Railway Station at about 11.30 P.M., he received information that one person was firing from his rifle near the station in suspicious manner which had caused fear in the mind of general public. The informant claims to have rushed to the railway station and started searching and about 12 midnight the informant saw a person standing near a jeep armed with rifle and asked him about firing that he had resorted to but there was no satisfactory reply received. It is said that the said person disclosed his name as Raghav Singh of Village-Mahadah and from his possession a rifle and two live cartridges were recovered and seized under a seizure list before independent witnesses and a copy of the seizure list was handed over to him. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police. It was further sought to be submitted that the petitioner was the son of Siddhnath Singh and Siddhnath Singh is a licensee of Rifle No. A/B 80/0855 bearing Licence No. 237 of Pirpainti Police Station within the District of Bhagalpur and that on the alleged date of occurrence licensee Siddhnath Singh alongwith his son Raghav were going to Patna by train to participate in a function in the house of some relatives and when Siddhnath Singh reached Buxar Railway Station he went to answer the call of nature temporarily handing his rifle to son and in the meantime the patrolling party arrived and seized the rifle and arrested the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had given out the true facts. It was also sought to be submitted that the matter was enquired into by the police and the police had filed a petition in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar on 1.9.2006 stating therein that during course of investigation it had come to light that the licence holder Siddhnath Singh was going some where and had handed over his licensee rifle to his son and it was then police party arrived and seized the rifle and took the petitioner into custody. It has also been submitted that the rifle has already been released in favour of the father of the petitioner. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the licensee rifle had temporarily been handed over to him by his father while answering the call of nature and that no overt act had been committed by the petitioner and as such no offence under the Arms Act could possibly be alleged against him. 5. Admittedly, the rifle was a licensed one and the father of the petitioner was possessed of a license for the said rifle. He had temporarily handed over the custody of the rifle to his son as he himself wanted to answer the call of nature. That apart the investigation report dated 1.9.2006 submitted by S.I., Madan Prasad in the court which is Annexure-2 in this application indicates the same position. 6. Before one considers the merit of the application one thought comes to mind; if Siddhnath Singh and his son were travelling to Patna to attend a function then where was the necessity of carrying the rifle. 7. However, be that as it may, the report, of S.I., Madan Prasad was before the court when the impugned order dated 5.4.2007 was passed and the learned court ought to have taken into consideration the report of S.I., Madan Prasad before passing the impugned order since the same was a part of the investigation. No gainful purpose would be served by prosecuting the petitioner under the provisions of the Arms Act and in effect the same would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. 8. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, it would only be appropriate to quash the impugned order dated 5.4.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate. 9. In the result, the application is allowed.