Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1211 (MP)

Bablu @ Raj Kishore Gupta v. State of M. P.

2011-10-21

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 1.6.1996 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Murwara, Katni District Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 41/1991, convicting him under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 1908 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. According to prosecution, on 28.11.1990, Sub Inspector of Police Station Katni R. K. Gupta (PW2) received information that the appellant and co-accused Sunil were in illegal possession of country made bomb and other explosive substances. On receiving the said information, Inspector R.K. Gupta, along with Constable Dhaniram reached the house of accused Sunil and in presence of Kiran Singh (PW 1) and Hemant seized a country made bomb and other material used for manufacturing the bomb. Both the accused persons were arrested. The seized material was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. When it was confirmed by the said Laboratory vide its report Ex.P/2 that the seized material was explosive substance, charge sheet against the accused persons was filed in the Court of Magistrate. After committal, the case was sent for trial. 3. On framing the charge under section 5 of the 'Act', appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He also examined defence witness Gopal Goswami (DW 1) to substantiate that he was falsely implicated because of animus developed between him and police officers of police station Katni. 4. Before the trial Court, prosecution examined only two witnesses namely Kiran Singh (PW 1) and Sub Inspector R.K. Gupta (PW 2). 5. Relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Judge held the appellant guilty of the charge, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to animus developed between him and Police Inspector Aslam for not providing Gold Flake Cigarette to him. The evidence of Kiran Singh (PW 1), as well as Inspector R.K. Gupta (PW 2) is not reliable. Kiran Singh (PW 1), since did not support the prosecution case in part, he was declared hostile. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of R.K. Gupta (PW 2) was not reliable. No Roznamcha entries were produced for corroboration of the evidence of Inspector R.K. Gupta. Kiran Singh (PW 1), since did not support the prosecution case in part, he was declared hostile. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of R.K. Gupta (PW 2) was not reliable. No Roznamcha entries were produced for corroboration of the evidence of Inspector R.K. Gupta. He submitted that apart from it, no consent of the District Magistrate as required under section 7 of the 'Act' was produced and proved in the case. As such, the trial Court committed error in convicting the appellant. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that the evidence of Sub Inspector R.K. Gupta stood corroborated by the evidence of independent witness Kiran Singh (PW 1). It was established by the report of E.S.L. that the seized material was explosive substance. Since Inspector R.K. Gupta (PW 2), before the Court, stated that he had sent the seized material for examination to E.S.L., after obtaining the permission of District Magistrate, therefore, it was Wong to say that the consent of District Magistrate was not obtained. 7. On perusal of the evidence of Sub Inspector R.K. Gupta (PW 2), it appears that he proceeded for raid and recovery of the explosive substance on the basis of information received from informer, but he did not record any such information in the record of police station. He did not say that in recording the said information at police station there was any likehood of the accused persons escaping or concealing the explosive material. Though, he was accompanied by Constable Dhaniram, but Dhaniram was not examined in the Court. Out of the two independent witnesses of alleged seizure, Hemant was not produced in the Court. Other witness Kiran Singh (PW 1) though stated that a bomb Wrapped in a 'Panni' was recovered by the police from the accused and seizure memo Ex.P/1 was prepared, but he stayed that he did not know as to what was kept in the 'Panni'. He did not know whether any iron scrap, potash or iron splinters were seized. This witness was declared hostile. It is also important to note that none of the two witnesses said the seized material was at all sealed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Inspector R.K. Gupta was the person, who recovered the alleged explosive, recorded the first information report, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. This witness was declared hostile. It is also important to note that none of the two witnesses said the seized material was at all sealed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Inspector R.K. Gupta was the person, who recovered the alleged explosive, recorded the first information report, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. In these circumstances, his evidence was not worthy of reliance. 9. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of R.K. Gupta (PW 2), it is apparent that his evidence does not find full support from the evidence of Kiran Singh (PW 1). No record of the police station in respect of information received from informer was produced in the Court. Even, no record to show that the seized articles were deposited in the mal-khana of the police station was produced. Though, the articles were seized on 28.11.1990, they were sent to F.S.L. Sagar along with letter of Superintendent of Police Jabalpur on 11.12.1990. There is no evidence on record to indicate about the safe custody of the seized articles. 10. Another important aspect in the case is that in view of the provision of section 7 of the' Act' the Court could proceed for the trial of the offence under section 5 of the 'Act' only after the consent of the District Magistrate was received. Section 7 of the 'Act' reads asunder: 7. "Restriction on trial of offences:- No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate." 11. On a bare perusal of the above provision, it is clear that the Court cannot proceed for the trial of accused for offence under section 5 of the 'Act' except with the consent of the District Magistrate. Though, Inspector R.K. Gupta (PW 2) stated that only after the permission from District Magistrate, Jabalpur he had sent the seized material for examination to F.S.L. Sagar, but I do not feel that it was sufficient compliance of the above provision. No such permission or consent, if at all was obtained from the District Magistrate, was produced in the Court before trial. It was merely in his evidence before the Court that Inspector R.K. Gupta stated that he had sent the articles for examination with the permission of the District Magistrate. No such permission or consent, if at all was obtained from the District Magistrate, was produced in the Court before trial. It was merely in his evidence before the Court that Inspector R.K. Gupta stated that he had sent the articles for examination with the permission of the District Magistrate. The impact of section 7 of the 'Act' was about the restriction of the trial in the absence of the consent of the District Magistrate. Since the word 'shall proceed' has been used in the said provision, the trial of the accused in the absence of prior consent by the District Magistrate was illegal. Trial Court committed serious error in observing that the prosecution was initiated by Investigating Officer R.K. Gupta after obtaining the permission of District Magistrate. 12. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that it cannot be held that prosecution succeeded in proving the charge against the accused/ appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Learned trial Judge clearly mis-appreciated the evidence on record in recording the finding of guilt of the accused. 13. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant under section 5 of the 'Act' and the sentence passed against him is set aside. Appellant is acquitted. 14. Appeal allowed. Neeraj Ashar for appellant; Pramod Chaurasiya, Panel Lawyer for State.