Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 465 of indian penal code in Sh. Arun Gupta vs State (Cbi) on 22 July, 2014Matching Fragments
Present revision petition has been filed against judgment of conviction dated 05.05.2014 and order on sentence dated 15.05.2014 passed by Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in RC No.05/92, PS CBI/SPE/SIUXII/ND registered for offences under Section 120B read with Section 465, 471 IPC and 25 91) read with Section 3 of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 05.05.2014, appellantaccused has been convicted of offences under Section 120B read with Section 465, 471 IPC read with Section 25 (1) of the Act but vide order on sentence dated 15.05.2014, sentenced as under: "a. For offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC, RI for six months.
Other Charges under Section 120B read with Section 465/471 IPC and 465 & 471 IPC Offence U/s 465 & 471 IPC
10. So far as offence U/s 465 and 471 IPC are concerned, it may be mentioned that charge in the case was ordered to be framed vide order dt. 30.07.1999 for offences U/s 120 B read with Sec.465/471 IPC & 25(1) read with Sec.3 of the Act and not for offence U/s 465 & 471IPC. But on 27.01.2001 charge was somehow framed from the offences U/s 465 & 471 IPC.
This Court has gone through the Trial Court record to find out if the order dated 30.07.1999 was modified vide any subsequent order before framing of the charge on 27.01.2001. No such order is there for modification on the point of charge. Therefore, no charge for offences under Section 465 & 471 IPC could be framed against the accusedappellant. In terms of order dated 30.07.1999, charge only for offence under Section 120B read with Section 465 & 471 IPC could be framed against him, in addition to the charge under Section 25 (1) of the Act of 1972.
11. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveals that learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has held the accused guilty for offences under Section 120B read with Section 465/471 IPC, in addition to the offence under Section 25 (1) of the Act, 1972 but somehow sentenced him for substantive offences under Section 465 and 471 IPC, which could not be done. The accused appellant could not be put to trial for offence under Section 465 & 471 IPC when he was charged only for the substantive offence under Section 25 (1) of the Act of 1972. As a result, the order on sentence by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 465 and 471 IPC deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside.