Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25387 of 2010 (5) dt.07-10-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25387 of 2010 ====================================================== Awadhesh Kumar Singh, S/O-Chandradeo Prasad Singh resident of village- Babutola, P.S.-Barhara, District-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh For the State : Mr. M. N. Jha (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 5 16-10-2012 This quashing petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in G.R. No. 540 of 1997 arising out of Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 22 of 1997 by which and whereunder he took cognizance for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] , 52 of the Forest Act as well as 3 of Bihar Wood Act. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that the then S.I., Bhawanipur, namely, Shyamdev Singh recorded his self statement on 07.03.1997 to this effect that on the aforesaid date, he intercepted a truck and when he searched the truck, it was detected that the aforesaid truck was laden with khair woods. The driver of the aforesaid truck disclosed that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25387 of 2010 (5) dt.07-10-2012 aforesaid khair woods belonged to one Lalan Bharti who was found sitting in the aforesaid truck. The aforesaid co-accused, Lalan Bharti could not show any document relating to seized khair woods and on interrogation he disclosed that petitioner and two others were his partners and co-accused Sudhakar and Kailash Prasad Yadav were coming by a motorcycle. In the meantime, the aforesaid two persons came there and they were also apprehended by the informant. The aforesaid two persons also disclosed the name of petitioner as their partner and accordingly, the aforesaid S.I. lodged Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 22 of 1997 under [STATUTE] and 33 of Forest Act. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against co-accused persons whereas investigation against petitioner was kept pending as he was absconding at that time. The first charge sheet against co-accused persons was submitted in the year 1997 and after that the charge sheet against petitioner was submitted in the year 2006. The state of Bihar filed counter affidavit stating therein that after collecting sufficient materials charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, after conducting investigation police submitted charge sheet against some co-accused persons in the year 1997 and after Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25387 of 2010 (5) dt.07-10-2012 that second charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner in the year 2006 without collecting any fresh material and, therefore, the filing of second charge sheet without collecting any fresh material and after that taking cognizance by the learned court below on the basis of aforesaid charge sheet is nothing but only an abuse of process of the court. In support of his contention, he referred a decision reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 96. It is further contended by him that there was no material before the learned court below to take cognizance against the petitioner and moreover, Section 52 of the Forest Act is not a penal section and there is no local Act known as Bihar Wood Act. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in course of investigation, ample materials were collected against the petitioner and, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew my attention towards some paragraphs of the case diary. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record. It is well settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender and it is also settled principle that mere mentioning of wrong section in cognizance Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25387 of 2010 (5) dt.07-10-2012 order does not make the cognizance order bad in law. No doubt, Section 52 of the Forest Act is not a penal section and there is no local Act known as Bihar Wood Act but even if the learned court below has mentioned wrong section as well as wrong Act in the impugned order then also, the aforesaid defect does not render the cognizance order illegal. From perusal of the case diary it appears that apprehended persons disclosed the name of petitioner not only before the police officials but also before the independent witnesses and, therefore, it appears that there was material before the trial court to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioner also. So far as decision reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 96 Yamuna Pathak vs. The State of Bihar and another is concerned, the same is not applicable in the present case because in the said case charge sheet was submitted against some accused persons and one accused, namely, Yamuna Pathak was not sent up for trial and concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate having considered the materials available on the case diary took cognizance of the offences against charge sheeted accused persons whereas not sent up accused, namely, Yamuna Pathak was exonerated from the aforesaid proceeding and after passing of the aforesaid order, local Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25387 of 2010 (5) dt.07-10-2012 M.L.A. filed a petition before the higher officials who later on directed the Investigating Officer to file supplementary charge sheet against accused, Yamuna Pathak and, thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was filed against aforesaid accused Yamuna Pathak without complying with mandatory provision of Se

Applicable IPC Section: 414

Statute Text:
Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Assisting in concealment or disposal of stolen property, knowing it to be stolen. Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.