IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35685 of 2008 Md. Sarfuddin, son of Md. Reyaz, resident of village- Dewapur, P.S. Manjhagarh, District-Gopalganj. …………………………………………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ashutosh Kumar, son of Late Jagdish Singh, resident of village-Bhabhua, Ward No.11, P.S. Bhabhua, District-Kaimur, at present posted as Sub Inspector in Town Police Station-Gopalganj. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Prabhakar Singh & Rakesh Mohan Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, A.P.P. ---------------------------- O R D E R 5. 15.11.2011. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire proceeding of Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 instituted under Sections 399, 402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts, leading to this application, are that on the basis of the self statement of Ashutosh Kumar, Sub Inspector of Gopalganj Town Police Station, opposite party no.2, Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 2 was instituted on 4.5.2008 under Sections 399, 402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code against the six accused persons including the petitioner. The case of the opposite party no.2, as alleged in the F.I.R., is that on 3.5.2008 at about 7 P.M., in the evening, he received secret information about the gathering of some miscreants in between railway station Harkhua and Manjhagarh for committing the train robbery. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 alongwith other police personnel reached near Harkhua Railway Station, where 4-5 persons were seen sitting in the north of Railway Godown at lonely place. When the opposite party no.2 alongwith other police personnels reached near them, then they started to flee away but out of them four were apprehended, who disclosed their name as Nurain Mian, Eabal, Jumma Sah and Md. Sarfuddin (petitioner). On query, they also disclosed the name of a person who succeeded in fleeing away as Bhuttu, resident of Mirlipur, P.S. Thawe. On search, Nurain Mian was found in possession of one loaded pistol, one mobile and a knife, Md. Eqbal was found in possession of one loaded pistol, Jumma Sah, was found in possession of one 3 country made loaded pistol and two live cartridges and the petitioner, Md. Sarfuddin, was found in possession of one loaded Magazine of 7.65 Bore. On demand, none of them produced any paper to keep the firearms. On query, the accused, Nurain Mian, disclosed about their gathering there to commit robbery in train and he also disclosed that a Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No.BR 29- 7392 is standing near Bharkuiya Dhala and their plan was to move from that vehicle after committing the robbery. The further case of the opposite party no.2 is that on receiving such information, Officer Incharge of Manjhagarh Police Station was informed and he proceeded alongwith the apprehended miscreants for Bharkuiya Dhala where a Bolero Jeep was seized on the identification of the accused, Nurain Mian, and the Jeep Driver, who disclosed his name as Akhtar Ali, was also apprehended and on demand, he did not produce any paper of the vehicle. The Jeep Driver, Akhtar Ali, was also found in possession of one Nokia mobile. As such, the aforesaid accused persons had gathered there to commit train robbery after making the plan. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 petitioner submitted that from perusal of the First Information Report of both the cases, i.e., Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 and Goaplganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008, Annexures-‘1’ and ‘2’ to this application, it is clear that story of both the cases are same and both the cases have been lodged by the same informant and, as such, after lodging of the Gopalganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008 under Sections 25(1-b) (a) and 26 of the Arms Act, the subsequent institution of the Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 under Sections 399, 402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal and hit by article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, the doctrine of double jeo pardy. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submittted that once the Gopalganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008 had been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner and other accused for the same occurrence, then the subsequent lodging of Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 is illegal and liable to be quashed and placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Lalit Kumar Singh and others Vs. The State of Bihar and another {2006(3) PLJR 610}. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the 5 State opposed the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner stating that Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 was not lodged later on, after lodging of Gopalganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008, but both cases have been lodged simultaneously, one for the offence under the Arms Act and the other for the offence under the Indian Penal Code. 5. On perusal of the record of the case, it appears that the opposite party no.2, Ashutosh Kumar, Sub Inspector of Gopalganj Town Police Station, on receiving the secret information about gathering of some miscreants in between the Railway Station Harkhua and Manjhagarh to commit the train robbery, he alongwith other police personnels reached there, where four accused persons were apprehended with firearms. Regarding the recovery of firearms Gopalganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008 was instituted under Sections 25 (1-b) (a) and 26 of the Arms Act against the five accused persons as appears from Annexure-‘2’ to this application and on the identification of one of the apprehended accused, Nurain Mian, on seizing the Bolero Vehicle alongwith its driver, for assembling and preparing the plan to commit 6 robbery and assisting in concealment of the stolen property, Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 was instituted on the same day, i.e., 4.5.2008 under Sections 399, 402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code as appears from Annexure-‘1’ to this application. It also appears from Annexure-‘3’ to this application that the police after investigation has submitted the chargesheet in Gopalganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008 on 30.6.2008 finding the case to be true under Sections 25(1-b) (a) and 26 of the Arms Act and also in Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 on 30.6.2008 finding the case to be true under Sections 399, 402 and 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India bars the trial of a person for the offence for which he had already been prosecuted and convicted/acquitted. In the present case, the offence in both the cases are different and, as such, lodging of Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 for the offence under the Indian Penal Code after lodging of the Gopalganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008 for the offence under the Arms Act will not be hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. 7. In the case of Lalit Kumar Singh and 7 others Vs. The State of Bihar and another {2006(3) PLJR 610}, regarding the theft of NSCs worth Rs.40 crores and Kishan Vikas Patra woth Rs.40 crores from railway wagon at Patna Junction, Patna G.R.P. P.S. Case No.29 of 1998 was lodged and later on regarding the same theft Patna Junction G.R.P.P.S. Case No.225 of 2006 was also lodged against the petitioners of that case and others and the investigations were going on in both the cases. In that circumstances, a Bench of this Court has been pleased to quash the F.I.R. of Patna Junction G.R.P.P.S. Case No.225 of 2006, but in the present case, Gopalganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008 was lodged for the offence under the Arms Act and the Gopalganj P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 was lodged for the offence under the Indian Penal Code and in both the cases, the chargesheet has already been submitted by the police after investigation. As such, the decision rendered in the aforesaid case will not be applicable in the facts and the circumstances of the present case. 8. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in lodging the two cases, one in respect of recovery under 8 the Arms Act and the second for the offence for assembling and preparing the plan to commit robbery and assisting in concealment of the stolen property under the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)