Fakeer Chand vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32833)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7937 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32833]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1004/2003

Fakeer Chand S/o Ram Kumar, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Sadalpur, P.S. Aadampur, District Hissar (Haryana). (Presently lodged at Sub Jail, Bhadra)

----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HSS Kharlia For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Judgment

Reserved On 27/09/2023 Pronounced On 05/10/2023

01- fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk ;g fuxjkuh fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] Hkknjk ds fu.kZ; fnukad 12-12-2001 o vihyh; U;k;ky; fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Hkknjk] ftyk guqekux<+ ds fu.kZ; fnukafdr 16-10-2003 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

02- la{ksi esa ekeys ds rF; bl izdkj ls gS fd fnukad 26-07-1994 dks oDr 9%15 ,,e dks Hkkxykjke] ,p-,p-vks- Fkkukf/kdkjh] iqfyl Fkkuk fHkjkuh] guqekux<+ e; tkCrk x'r djrs gq, nkSjkus x'r vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ Qdhjpan ds dCts ls vejiqjk ls vthriqjk lM+d Vh iksbZ.V ij mlds igus gq, ik;tkes dh ckbZa Mc esa ,d 315 cksj dk fiLrkSy feyk] ftldk ykbZlsal vfHk;qDr ds ikl ugha gksus ls /kkjk 3@25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e dk vijk/k cuuk ik, tkus ij fiLrkSy dks lhy eksgj dj ekSds ij QnZ cukbZ xbZ vkSj vfHk;qDr dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA

03- ,l-,p-vks- }kjk Fkkuk igqapdj ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 102@94 ntZ dh xbZ vkSj Lo;a rQ~rh'k dh xbZ vkSj ckn rQ~rh'k fnukad 15-11-94 dks U;kf;d eftLVªsV] Hkknjk ds le{k pkyku /kkjk 3@25 vkElZ ,DV esa is'k fd;k x;kA

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (2 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

04- bl izdj.k esa cgl pktZ lquh tkdj /kkjk 3@25 vkElZ ,DV dk vkjksi fnukad 04-08-95 dks lquk;k x;kA vfHk;kstd i{k dh vksj ls dqy 6 xokgku ds c;ku dj lk{; vfHk;kstu lekIr ?kksf"kr dh xbZA vfHk;qDr ds /kkjk 313 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr c;ku eqfYte fy, x,A lk{; lQkbZ is'k djuk ugha pkgkA cgl vafre lquh tkdj vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] Hkknjk }kjk vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 3@25 vkElZ ,DV esa nks"kh Bgjkrs gq, 1 o"kZ ds dBksj dkjkokl o 100@& :i;s ds tqekZus o vne vnk;xh tqekZuk 15 fnu ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 05- fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gksdj vihy izLrqr dh xbZA tks vihy vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Hkknjk] ftyk guqekux<+ }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V djrs gq, [kkfjt dh xbZA nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gksdj ;g fuxjkuh izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 06- fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk viuh fuxjkuh esa ;g vk/kkj fy;k x;k fd nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk fu.kZ; fof/kfo:)] xyr o vuqfpr gSA tks lk{; ij ekbZ.M vIykbZ fd, fcuk fn;k x;k gSA bl ekeys esa cjkenxh ,l-,p-vks-] ih-MCY;w 06 Hkkxykjke }kjk dh xbZA ftlus ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djokbZ] tks bl ekeys esa eqLrxhl gSA ftlds }kjk gh bl ekeys esa vuqla/kku fd;k x;kA bl fof/kd fLFkfr ij nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk xkSj ugha dj fof/kfo:) fu.kZ; fn;k x;k gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk vU; vk/kkj fuxjkuh esa of.kZr djrs gq, nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ;ksa dks fujLRk djrs gq, vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dks nks"keqDr djkj fn, tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA

07- cgl fuxjkuh lquh xbZA

08- fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd bl ekeys esa Hkkxykjke ,l-,p-vks- gh izdj.k dk eqLrxhl gS vkSj mlh ds }kjk bl ekeys esa vuqla/kku fd;k x;kA dsyo ek= blh vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr nks"keqfDr dk vf/kdkjh gSA bl laca/k esa esjk /;ku ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709 o Jasbir Singh @ Javri @ Jabbar Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2015) 5 SCC

762 dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;kA fodYi esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dh

vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd ;fn vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr fd;k tkuk fof/klEer ugha le>k tk,] ml voLFkk esa vfHk;qDr dks ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn;k tkdj NksM+k tk, vFkok Hkqxrh gqbZ ltk ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tk,A

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (3 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

09- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dh vksj ls bldk l[r fojks/k djrs gq, ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd dsoy ek= bl vk/kkj ij fd Hkkxykjke] ,l-,p-vks- gh bl ekeys esa eqLrxhl gS vkSj mlds }kjk gh vuqla/kku fd;k x;k gS] vfHk;qDr nks"keqfDr dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS vkSj ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd /kkjk 3@25 vkElZ ,DV esa U;wure ltk dk izko/kku gksus ls tks ltk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nh xbZ gS] og fof/klEer gksuk crkrs gq, fuxjkuh [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 10- eSaus mijksDr rdksZa ij euu fd;k] i=koyh dk lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA bl ekeys esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; leku gSA nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dh concurrent findings gSA concurrent findings ds ekeys esa fof/kd fLFkfr dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk bl ekeys esa U;k;ksfpr gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Malkeet Singh Gill vs The State Of Chhattisgarh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 915/2022, Decided on 05-07-2022 ds iSjk la[;k 9

esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS%&

9. This Court in the case of 'Manju Ram Kalita vs State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330', while dealing with the scope of re-appreciation of evidence by higher Court in criminal revision, observed in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment as under

"9. So far as Issue 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage. It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by re appreciating the evidence.

10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice.

"8. ....The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (4 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure."

11. Thus, it is evident from the above that this Court being the fourth court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the courts below as the said courts have exercised their discretion in good faith giving due weight to relevant material and without being swayed by any irrelevant material. Even if two views are possible on the question of fact, we, being the fourth court, should not interfere even though we may exercise discretion differently had the case come before us initially. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact so far as the issue of bigamy is concerned nor the quantum of punishment on this count is required to be interfered with."

11- mijksDr ds vykok e/; izns'k mPp U;k;ky; ds tcyiqj ihB dh CRIMINAL REVISION No.5044/2022 Pronounced on 17.08.2023 VIVEK LODHI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ds ekeys esa mPp U;k;ky; ds /kkjk 397] 401 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj izkIr 'kfDr;ksa ij fopkj fd;k vkSj iSjk la[;k 5 ls 8 esa fuEukuqlkj fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k vkSj fof/kd fLFkfr dks Li"V fd;k x;k%&

5. Before analyzing the facts of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the scope & ambit of criminal revision/powers of court u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC. In this connection, I would like to refer decisions of Hon'ble apex court in State Vs. R. Soundirarasu ,AIR 2022 SC 4218, State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 & Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 (3-Judge Bench).

6.In Duli Chand (supra), Hon'ble apex court has held as under:-

"5.........The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and,therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (5 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. ....."

7.In R. Soundirarasu (supra), Hon'ble apex court has held asunder:-"75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 cri LJ 225 (SC)), this Court held asunder:-

"3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.". Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. There revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure."

8.In Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (supra), Hon'ble apex court has held as under:-"21.In embarking upon the minutest re- examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in are vision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party, i.e.Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004[Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav]. That was the case in which the High

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (6 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.22.The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 410 Cr.P.C.Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court."It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power."

12- mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls ;g fof/kd fLFkfr Li"V gS fd tc fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; dh fdlh QkStnkjh ekeys esa concurrent findings gks] ml voLFkk esa nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk fu.kZ; totally

perverse dh Js.kh esa vkrk gks vFkok grave error of law or procedure dk ekeyk gks] ml voLFkk esa gh mPp U;k;ky; dks lk{; dk Re-appreciation djuk pkfg, vkSj fu.kZ; esa gLr{ksi djuk pkfg,] vU;Fkk ughaA 13- mDr fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys esa fopkj fd;k x;kA gLrxr ekeys esa vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls fopkj.k U;k;ky;] vihyh; U;k;ky; o bl U;k;ky; esa eq[; vk/kkj ;g jgk gS fd Hkkxykjke] ,l-,p- vks- us gh ekSds ij cjkenxh dh vkSj muds }kjk gh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ xbZ vkSj Hkkxykjke] ,l-,p-vks- }kjk gh bl ekeys esa vuqla/kku fd;k x;kA bl vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr nks"keqfDr dk vf/kdkjh gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ ds bl vk/kkj dks fof/klEer ugha gksuk djkj

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (7 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

fn;k x;k vkSj eqLrxhl gh vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh gksus ds ckotwn vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dks nks"kh Bgjkrs gq, ltk ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 14- ,slh voLFkk esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ij xkSj fd;k x;k vkSj fof/kd fLFkfr ij fopkj fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds ekuuh; ikap U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ¼laoS/kkfud ihB½ }kjk bl laca/k esa Mukesh Singh Vs State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) SLP(Criminal) Diary No. 39528/2018 o rhu vU; SLP(Criminal) ij fopkj djrs gq, fnukad 31-08- 2020 esa fu.kZ; fn;k x;k vkSj iSjk la[;k 12 esa fuEukuqlkj fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k%&

12.From the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we conclude and answer the reference as under:

I. That the observations of this Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v.State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15; Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996)11 SCC 709; and State by Inspector of Police, NIB, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam 61(2010) 15 SCC 369 and the acquittal of the accused by this Court on the ground that as the informant and the investigator was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the accused is entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court laid down any general proposition of law that in each and every case where the informant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is entitled to acquittal;

II. In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.

15- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh laoS/kkfud ihB ds eqds'k flag okys fu.kZ; esa vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls izLrqr es?kkflag okys ekeys ij fopkj

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (8 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

fd;k x;k vkSj iSjk la[;k 12 ds QLVZ fcanw esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k fd es?kkflag okys ekeys esa ;g lkekU; fl)kar izfrikfnr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd izR;sd ekeys esa tc eqLrxhl gh vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh gks rks vfHk;qDr nks"keqfDr dk vf/kdkjh gksxk cfYd ;g fu.kZ; ml izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij gh vk/kkfjr gSA bl fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij vU; ekeyksa esa ftlesa eqLrxhl o vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh leku gks] vfHk;qDr nks"keqfDr dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 16- tgka rd fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr tlchj flag okys ekeys dk iz'u gS] bl ekeys esa Hkh iSjk la[;k 12 esa dqy 5 dkj.kksa ij la;qDr :i ls fopkj djrs gq, vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr djkj fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa Hkh ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr ugha fd;k x;k fd izR;sd ekeys esa] ftlesa eqLrxhl gh vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh gks] vfHk;qDr nks"keqfDr dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh laoS/kkfud ihB ds eqds'k flag okys fu.kZ; ds iSjk la[;k 12 ds IInd clause ds eqrkfcd ekuuh; mPpre ds ekuuh; rhu U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds fu.kZ; Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 dks Overrule fd;k x;k vkSj lkFk gh Li"V fd;k x;k fd mlh ds

leku vU; fu.kZ;ksa] ftuesa ;g vafdr gks fd eqLrxhl gh vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh gksxk] mlds vk/kkj ij nks"keqfDr dh tkuh pkfg,A og lgh fof/k ugha gSA 17- mijksDr foospu ls ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dk laoS/kkfud ihB dk eqds'k flag okyk fu.kZ; gLrxr ekeys esa c[kwch ykxw gksrk gS vkSj eqds'k flag okys ekeys esa Li"V fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd dsoy ek= bl vk/kkj ij fd eqLrxhl gh vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh gks] vfHk;qDr nks"keqfDr dk vf/kdkjh ugha gks ldrkA ;g izR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa ij fopkj dj gh U;k;ky; dks fu"d"kZ fudkyuk pkfg,A 18- bl fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, ;g Li"V gS fd dsoy ek= bl vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr nks"keqfDr dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS fd eqLrxhl gh bl ekeys esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh gSA gLrxr ekeys esa nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk lk{; dk foLr`r foospu fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl ekeys esa QnZ cjkenxh izn'kZ ih1 ds eqrkfcd Lora= xokg lR;oku iq= panqjke dh ekStwnxh esa cjkenxh dh dk;Zokgh dh xbZA dsoy ek= bl vk/kkj ij dh lR;oku tc U;k;ky; esa crkSj ih-MCY;w 03 ijhf{kr gqvk] i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr gqvk] vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh ij vfo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj cjkenxhdrkZ o eqLrxhl rFkk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh leku gksus ls bl ekeys esa vfHk;qDr nks"keqfDr dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA cjkenxhdrkZ vf/kdkjh@vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dh vfHk;qDr ds lkFk fdlh izdkj jaft'k iwoZ esa gks] ,slk cpko vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dk ugha jgk gSA lR;oku ds vykok vU;

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (9 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

xokg ugha cqykus ds laca/k esa ih-MCY;w 06 vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls iz'u djus ij ;g Li"V fd;k x;k fd lR;oku ds vykok [ksrksa ls vU; dksbZ ekSrfcj lk{kh us ugha cqyk;k D;ksafd ogka ij dksbZ mifLFkr ugha FkkA ,slh voLFkk esa bl ekeys esa concurrent findings vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo:) nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dh gksus ls

vkSj vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds uohure laoS/kkfud ihB ds eqds'k flag okys fu.kZ; ds ifjizs{; esa vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dks dksbZ ykHk iznku ugha djrs] ,slh voLFkk esa nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dks nks"kfl) Bgjk, tkus dk fu.kZ; iqf"V fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 19- vc bl ekeys esa bl iz'u ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gS fd vfHk;qDr ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS vFkok ughaA fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk bl ekeys esa U;wure ltk ds n.M dk izko/kku gksus ls vfHk;qDr dks ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk nsus dk fojks/k fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa fof/kd fLFkfr ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds LAKHVIR SINGH ETC. Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.47-48/2021 Decided on 19-01-2021 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa

ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj /kkjk 397 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] ftlesa fd U;wure 7 o"kZ dh ltk dk izko/kku gS] ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn;k x;kA y[kfoj flag okys ekeys ds iSjk la[;k 11 ls 13 esa fuEukuqlkj fof/kd fLFkfr dk foospu fd;k x;k gS%&

11.The legal position insofar as invocation of Section 4 is concerned has been analysed in Ishar Das vs. State of Punjab (1973) 2 SCC 65 elucidating that non-obstante clause in Section 4 of the Act reflected the legislative intent that provisions of the Act have effect notwithstanding any other law in force at that time. The observation in Ramji Missar (supra) [Ramji Missar vs. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1088 (4 Judges bench judgment)] was cited with approval to the effect that in case of any ambiguity, the beneficial provisions of the Act should receive wide interpretation and should not be read in a restricted sense.

12.The aforesaid aspect is confirmed by the wording of the said Act which reads as under:

"18. Saving of operation of certain enactments. --Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section 31 of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 (8 of 1897), or sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), or of any law in force in any State relating to juvenile offenders or Borstal Schools."

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (10 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

13. Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind the application of the Act. In Ishar Das(supra), this Court noted that if the object of the legislature was that the Act does not apply to all cases where a minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed, there was no reason to specifically provide an exception for Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The fact that Section 18 of the Act does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences. A more nuanced interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE vs. Bahubali (1979) 2 SCC

279. It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the law contains a non-obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act [State vs. Ratan Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590]. It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das (Supra) [(2019) 4 SCC 125] that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We are of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 397 of IPC, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab ILR (1981) P&H 1 are in the same context.

20- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDRk U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa tks fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk foospu fd;k x;k gS] mlls ;g fof/kd fLFkfr Li"V gS fd ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e 1958 dh /kkjk 18 esa of.kZr vf/kfu;e ds ekeys esa ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs] vU; lHkh ekeyksa esa ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSa vkSj ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e 1958 ykxw gksus ds i'pkr tks fo'ks"k vf/kfu;e ykxw gq, gSa] mu vf/kfu;eksa esa ;fn U;wure ltk dk izko/kku gS lkFk gh ml vf/kfu;e esa Non-obstante clause gS] ml voLFkk esa gh mu vf/kfu;eksa ds ekeyksa esa ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrkA 21- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds y[kfoj flag okys ekeys esa tks CCE vs. Bahubali (1979) 2 SCC 279 dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] bl ekeys esa Defence

of India Act 1962 dh /kkjk 43 o Defence of India Rules 1963-Rules 126

ij fopkj fd;k x;kA /kkjk 43 esa fuEukuqlkj izko/kku fd;k x;k gS%&

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (11 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

43. Effect of Act and rules, etc., inconsistent with other enactments.-

The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder or any order made under any such rule shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.

22- bl vf/kfu;e esa Non-obstante clause ekStwn gS vkSj U;wure ltk dk izko/kku fd;k x;k gS] ml voLFkk esa ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk ugha fn;k x;kA blh izdkj State Vs. Ratan Lal Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590 ds ekeys esa Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ls lacaf/kr ekeyk gksus ls vkSj /kkjk 18 esa

iwoZ esa iqjkus Corruption Act dk mYys[k gksus ls /kkjk 8 tujy DykWtst ,DV ds vk/kkj ij ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk ugha fn;k x;kA 23- blh izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds y[kfoj flag okys ekeys esa tks Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab ILR(1981)P&H 1 dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] og ekeyk iatkc vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1914 ls lacaf/kr Fkk] ftlesa ih-,Q-,- ,DV ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj ;g Li"V fd;k x;k fd ih-,Q-,- ,DV esa igys U;wure ltk dk izko/kku Fkk ijarq ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn, tkus ls euk ugha fd;k gqvk FkkA ckn esa ih-,Q-,- ,DV 1954 esa /kkjk 22 AA tksM+k x;k gS] mlds eqrkfcd ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk la'kks/ku ds i'pkr ugha fn;k tk ldrk vkSj bl fu.kZ; esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k fd dsoy ek= bl vk/kkj ij fd fdlh vijk/k esa U;wure ltk dk izko/kku gS] ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn, tkus ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk tc rd fd ml vf/kfu;e esa ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn, tkus ls Li"V :i ls eukgh ugha dh xbZ gks ;k dksbZ non- obstante clause mlesa u dj fn;k x;k gksA

24- mijksDr fof/kd fLFkfr ls ;g Li"V gS fd tc ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e ds ykxw gksus ds i'pkr dksbZ ubZ fof/k cukbZ xbZ gS] mlesa dsoy ek= U;wure ltk dk izko/kku gksus ls ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn, tkus ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA tc rd fd ml fof/k esa Li"V :i ls ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn, tkus ls eukgh u gks vFkok non-obstante clause u gksA 25- bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk Amit Singh vs State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 455/2005 date of judgment 10/01/2020 esa blh U;k;ky; ds nks fu.kZ; Man Singh @ Vijay Singh & Anr.

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (12 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

vs. The State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.391/1995), decided on 21.02.2017; and Nawab Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.248/1990), decided on 29.03.2012 ij fopkj djrs gq,

iSjk la[;k 12 esa fuEukuqlkj mYys[k fd;k x;k gS%& (12) -----------The Arms Act does not prescribe any prohibition against grant of probation in case of conviction under Section 4/25 of the Act. There is no material on the record of the case that any of the appellants is having any criminal antecedents. The accused appellants Meenu @ Manjeet Singh, Rinku Singh, Harendra Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Robin Tyagi were convicted for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and as such, they too deserve benefit of probation on the ratio of Man Singh and Nawab Singh's cases respectively.

26- iwoZ esa of.kZr fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd vkElZ ,DV esa fof'k"B :i ls ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn, tkus ls eukgh ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj vkElZ ,DV esa ;g vafdr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd fdlh vU; fof/k;ksa dk izHkko bl vf/kfu;e ij ugha gksxk] ;kfu bl vf/kfu;e esa dksbZ non-obstante clause ugha gSA ,slh voLFkk esa /kkjk 3@25 vkElZ ,DV ds vijk/k esa U;wure ltk dk izko/kku gksus ds ckotwn Hkh ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn;k tk ldrk gSA 27- vr% bl ekeys esa vfHk;qDr dks iwoZ esa nks"kfl) ?kksf"kr fd;k gksuk ugha crk;k x;k gS vkSj gLrxr ekeys esa cjkenxh lu 1994 esa gqbZ gS] ftldks yxHkx 29 o"kZ gks pqds gSaA ,slh voLFkk esa bl ekeys esa /kkjk 4 ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk n.Mkns'k fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 28- vr% fuxjkuhdrkZ dh fuxjkuh vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] Hkknjk ds fu.kZ; fnukafdr 12-12-2001 o vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Hkknjk ftyk guqekux<+ ds fu.kZ; fnukad 16-10- 2003 ds }kjk vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ Qdhjpan dks tks /kkjk 3@25 vkElZ ,DV esa nks"kflf) dh xbZ gS] ml fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh tkrh gS vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks n.Mkns'k fn;k x;k] mls fujLr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ /kkjk 4 ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e ds rgr nks o"kZ ds fy, 10&10 gtkj :i;s ds tekur eqpyds ,d ekg ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k bu 'krksZa ds lkFk rLnhd djk nas fd ¼1½ og vijk/k dh iqujkofrZ ugha djsxkA ¼2½ lekt esa ifj'kkafr cuk, j[ksxk vkSj ¼3½ U;k;ky; }kjk vkgwr djus ij ltk Hkqxrus ds fy, mifLFkr vk,xk] rks ckn rLnhd tekur eqpydk vfHk;qDr dks

[2023:RJ-JD:32833] (13 of 13) [CRLR-1004/2003]

ifjoh{kk ij fjgk dj fn;k tkos lkFk gh vfHk;qDr /kkjk 5 ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e ds rgr 5 gtkj :i;s crkSj vfHk;kstu O;; fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa tek djk,xkA ,d ekg esa /kkjk 4 o 5 ifjoh{kk vf/kfu;e ds rgr ikfjr vkns'k dh ikyuk ugha djus ij vfHk;qDr dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nh xbZ ltk HkqxrkbZ tk,A 29- fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr ds lkFk nksuksas v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh i=kofy;ka ykSVkbZ tk,aA

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J 3-mayank/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)