Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The third revisionist Sushil Arya has challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that the impugned order dated 14.07.2008 is not a reasoned order and hence deserves to be set aside. He further claimed that the Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that the cognizance of the offence was already taken by the court of Amritsar in case FIR no.101/02 U/s 420/467/468/471/419/295A/109 & 371 IPC and Section (CR No.3/08, CR No.28/08 & CR No.29/09) Page No. 12 of pages 37 18/19/20 of the Transplant of Human Organ Act at PS D. Division, Amritsar and the accused/petitioner Sushil Arya had been arrayed as a witness there. It has not been appreciated that the cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender. When the cognizance of the offence of illegal transplantation of Kidney has already been taken by a court of competent jurisdiction, it can not again be taken by another court merely because a few more persons have been named as accused in the subsequent complaint. It has also not been appreciated that transplantation of Human Organ Act particularly section 22 specifically prohibits the courts from taking cognizance of any offence under the said Act except on a complaint made by the appropriate authority or as prescribed in Section 22 (b). In the present case, the complaint has not been made by the appropriate authority, rather by an individual and that too without complying the provisions of the Act and as such the trial court has thus erred in farming the charge for the offences under the said Act. The charges have been framed mechanically. The Ld. MM/Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the said offence. The charge U/s 420 IPC for inducing the complainant to (CR No.3/08, CR No.28/08 & CR No.29/09) Page No. 13 of pages 37 deliver kidney to the accused ought not to have been framed as there is a special statue relating to the illegal transplantation of human organ. Thus the provisions of IPC can not be invoked. The Ld. MM/Delhi had proceeded to frame charges mechanically under all the offences against all the accused and mechanically repeated the date, time and place of occurrence. The charges as framed are vague. There were no allegation that the affidavit of the complainant was forged by the petitioners/accused and thus there can not be any charge U/s 469/468/471 IPC against him. It is also claimed that the alleged forged and fabricated documents have not been filed, rather the copies thereof have been annexed. The charges for the offence of forgery can not be levelled in absence of original documents. It is also claimed that there is no expert opinion or report about the handwriting on the documents allegedly to be forged. It is also claimed that the case in hand has been filed after about three years of incident.

According to Ld. counsel for the revisionist Sushil Arya, the impugned order dated 14.07.2008 is not a reasoned order and hence deserves to be set aside. Further, Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that (CR No.3/08, CR No.28/08 & CR No.29/09) Page No. 20 of pages 37 the cognizance of the offence was already taken by the court of Amritsar in case FIR no.101/02 U/s 420/467/468/471/419/295A/109 & 371 IPC and Section 18/19/20 of the Transplant of Human Organ Act at PS D. Division, Amritsar and the accused/petitioner Sushil Arya had been arrayed as a witness there. It has not been appreciated that the cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender. When the cognizance of the offence of illegal transplantation of Kidney has already been taken by a court of competent jurisdiction, it can not again be taken by another court merely because a few more persons have been named as accused in the subsequent complaint. Here in his submissions Ld. counsel for revisionist has placed reliance upon a judgment reported as AIR 1996 SC 204 titled as Anil Saran Vs. State of Bihar. It has also not been appreciated that transplantation of Human Organ Act particularly Section 22 specifically prohibits the courts from taking cognizance of any offence under the said Act except on a complaint made by the appropriate authority or as prescribed in Section 22 (b). In the present case, the complaint has not been made by the appropriate authority, rather by an individual and that too without (CR No.3/08, CR No.28/08 & CR No.29/09) Page No. 21 of pages 37 complying the provisions of the Act and as such the trial court has thus erred in farming the charge for the offences under the said Act. The charges have been framed mechanically. Ld. MM/Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the said offence. Ld. MM/Delhi had proceeded to frame charges mechanically under all the offences against all the accused and mechanically repeated the date, time and place of occurrence. The charges as framed are vague. There were no allegation that the affidavit of the complainant was forged by the petitioners/accused and thus there can not be any charge U/s 469/468/471 IPC against him. The charges for the offence of forgery can not be levelled in absence of original documents. Further, there is no expert opinion or report about the handwriting on the documents allegedly to be forged. The case in hand has been filed after about three years of incident.