Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1964 (RAJ)

Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-09

NISHA GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 5.7.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui Camp at Mahuwa District Dausa in Sessions Case No. 35/2011 whereby the application under Section 300 Cr.P.C., has been dismissed. 2. The short facts of case giving rise to this petition are that earlier F.I.R. No. 39/1996 was registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Jaipur and during the course of investigation of above F.I.R. on the information of accused Pappu @ Salim Khan, search was made at Roopbas and some explosive articles were shown to be recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner and after investigation challan was filed and present petitioner was convicted for the same in Sessions Case No. 8/2008 (arising from F.I.R. No. 39/96). Thereafter, again F.I.R. No. 305/1997 was registered for the offence under Sections 4, 5 of the Explosives Substance Act and Section 9(B) of the Indian Explosives Act. The present petitioner moved application under Section 300 Cr.P.C., on the contention that recovery which has been made in F.I.R. No. 39/1996 is only basis for F.I.R. No. 305/97 and after considering the facts of the case, particularly that recovery of explosives Articles in F.I.R. No. 39/1996 is only basis for the prosecution of the present petitioner in F.I.R. No. 305/97, the present petitioner has been discharged. 3. Again at Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa F.I.R. No. 148/1996 was registered on the strength of same recovery which has been made basis in F.I.R. No. 39/96 and present petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the same. The present petitioner moved an application under Section 300 Cr.P.C. which has been rejected, hence this petition. 4. The only contention of the petitioner is that on a single recovery, this third prosecution cannot be held. Earlier on the same recovery present petitioner has been convicted in F.I.R. No. 39/96 and second F.I.R. could not be continued. Charge order has also been placed on record which shows that the present petitioner has only been charged for the present prosecution for the offence under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substance Act read with 120 I.P.C. 5. The Public Prosecutor has not opposed the factual scenario of the case. 6. Charge order has also been placed on record which shows that the present petitioner has only been charged for the present prosecution for the offence under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substance Act read with 120 I.P.C. 5. The Public Prosecutor has not opposed the factual scenario of the case. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order which show that in present prosecution, the present petitioner has been charged only on the ground that earlier in F.I.R. No. 39/96 explosives Ammonium Nitrate has been recovered from him and photo copies of the said recovery and seizure memo has been filed along with charge-sheet. 7. It is not in dispute that on the same recovery, present petitioner has been charged earlier and convicted in F.I.R. No. 39/96 and looking to the provisions of Section 300 Cr.P.C., this third prosecution on the same facts is abuse of the process of the Court and liable to be quashed. The Court below has not considered the facts in right perspective and order of rejecting the application under Section 300 Cr.P.C., is per verse and liable to be quashed and set aside.In view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings pending in Sessions Case No. 35/2011 before Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui Camp at Mahuwa, District Dausa is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******