Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kallu @ Sanjay Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2015
CRR-1538-2015
(KALLU @ SANJAY SONI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
26-08-2015
Shri A.K.Singh, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Divesh Jain, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in compliance with Court order dated 27-07-2015, he has filed copy of the entire charge sheet.
Since the respondent/State is represented and copy of the entire charge sheet has been filed, the matter is admitted and heard finally by consent. This criminal revision filed by accused persons/applicants Kallu @ Sanjay Soni and Vikrant @ Vikki is directed against the order dated 30.06.2015, whereby the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, had framed a charge under sections 413 and 201 of I.P.C. against applicant Kallu @ Sanjay Soni and a charge under sections 411 and 413 against applicant Vikrant @ Vikki.
The prosecution case may briefly be stated thus:
On 21.04.2014 a mobile phone and some gold ornaments worth Rs.60,000/- were stolen from the house of complainant Prem Singh. On investigation, the police concluded that the theft was committed by co-accused Dhannu @ Dhaneshwar and Jitendra. The stolen gold ornaments were received from Dhannu by co-accused Mohan. He got the ornaments melted by applicant/accused Kallu and sold them to applicant Vikrant for Rs.26,400/-.
Learned counsel for the applicants has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that no charge against the applicants under section 413 of the I.P.C. is made out because there is nothing on record to indicate that they habitually dealt in stolen property; however, during the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants conceded that the charge under section 411 of the I.P.C. is sustainable.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned order. Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
413. Habitually dealing in stolen property.âWhoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
It has been held by Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Waman Narayan Gheeya and ors.,2007 Cr.L.J. 3614 that a charge under section 413 of the Indian Penal Code for âhabitually dealingâ in stolen property can be framed when there is material on record to indicate that there are instances other than the present one, of accused found to be indulging in the stolen property. However, it is not necessary that there must be conviction or finding against the accused for the purpose of framing charge under section 413 of I.P.C. In that case, investigating agency had submitted a list of ten pending cases against the accused for similar type of offences; therefore, it was held that discharging of accused under section 413 of I.P.C., was not sustainable. In the case of Kotta Gopinarayan Choudhary Vrs. State of Orissa, 2003 CRI.L.J.4050, Orissa High Court has held that a charge under section 413 of the I.P.C. cannot be framed unless the accused had been previously been convicted for commission of offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, a perusal of the list of documents filed along with charge sheet reveals that no material has been filed in respect of any previous cases under section 411 of the I.P.C. registered against either applicant Kallu @ Sanjay Soni or Vikrant @ Vikki. There is no other material filed with the charge-sheet which may go on to suggest that they had dealt with stolen property on any previous occasion. Thus, for the purpose of the present case, the Court need not enter into the question whether any previous conviction is required for the purpose of framing charge or mere pendency some cases under section 411 against the accused would be sufficient to frame a charge under section 413 because no material at all has been filed in this case.
In aforesaid circumstances, the charge under section 413 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable against any of applicants. For the same reasons, this benefit can be extended to accused persons who have not challenged the impugned order.
Consequently, this Criminal Revision is allowed, the charge under section 413 of the Indian Penal Code framed against all accused persons in this case is quashed.
Learned trial Court is directed to examine whether a charge under section 411 is made out against applicant Kallu @ Sanjay Soni and proceed accordingly.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE