1 Cri.Rev.No.37 of 2011 with Cri.Rev.No.48 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.37 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra, Through : Senior Inspector, Sangamner City Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS Kailash Hindurao Sawant, Age-35 years, R/o.Shere, Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.48 OF 2011 Sahakar Maharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Amrutnagar, Tq.Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Assistant Chemist, Bhaskar Shankar Pansare, Age-50 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Ghulewadi, Tq.Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Kailash Hindurao Sawant, Age-35 years, R/o.Shere, Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara 2. The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENTS 2 Cri.Rev.No.37 of 2011 with Cri.Rev.No.48 of 2011 Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned A.P.P. for State. Mr.A.Q.Ansari, learned counsel for respondent in first revision and respondent no.1 in the second revision. Mr.V.R.Dhorde, learned counsel for applicant in second revision. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 06/04/2011 PER COURT : 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed below Exh.398 in S.C.No. 2/2009, vide its order dated 21/12/2010, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, State has preferred Criminal Revision No.37/2011 while the original complainant have preferred Criminal Revision No.48/2011. As both these criminal revisions are arises out of the same order, questioning the correctness of the same order, both the criminal revisions to be disposed of by way of common order. 2. Heard learned A.P.P. for State, so also learned counsel Shri.Dhorde, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Revision No.48/2011, so also learned counsel for respondents in both the revisions. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision in these revisions can be summarized as follows : At 4.00 a.m., in the intervening night of 04/10/2010 and 3 Cri.Rev.No.37 of 2011 with Cri.Rev.No.48 of 2011 05/10/2010, some persons have committed roberry in Godown No.16 of Maharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Co-operative Sugar Factory and during the process, stolen 8215 sugar bags from the said godown. Accordingly, complaint was lodged in Sangamner City Police Station, Sangamner. On the basis of said complaint, an offence was registered vide CR No.I-204/2008 for an offence punishable u/s. 395 of The IPC. Subsequently, offences u/s. 397, 457 and 380 of The IPC, were added in the said CR. The said CR was registered against total 13 persons including the respondents. It appears that present applicant was arrested in connection with the said CR on 08/05/2009. During investigation, certain statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Sangamner, and then the trial was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. It appears that an application at Exh.398 was moved by the respondent herein for his discharge from the said trial. This application was moved u/s. 227 of The Cr.P.C. After hearing learned A.P.P. for State u/s. 226 of The Cr.P.C., about the case of prosecution, so also the counsel for respondent u/s. 227 and 228 of The Cr.P.C., the learned Lower Court was pleased to partly allow the said application to the extent of offence u/s.3 r/w. 25 of The Arms Act on the ground that at the time of filing of charge sheet, previous sanction for the prosecution against the respondent was not obtained. The learned Trial Court was also pleased to discharge the 4 Cri.Rev.No.37 of 2011 with Cri.Rev.No.48 of 2011 respondent for an offence punishable u/s. 397 of The IPC, but the application of respondent for discharge for an offence punishable u/s. 395, 457 and 380 was rejected by the Lower Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed below Exh.398 by the learned Lower court, the original complainant so also the State have approached this Court in its revisional jurisdiction u/s. 401 r/w. 397 of The Cr.P.C. In this backdrop, heard learned A.P.P. so also learned counsel for the original complainant in their respective revision applications, and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. During the course of submissions across the bar, both the counsels took us through the entire charge sheet as it is. In view of the admitted position that no previous sanction was obtained as required under the Arms Act, the respondent was discharged from the offence punishable u/s. 3 r/w. 25 of The Arms Act. At this juncture, it is necessary to quote section 39 of The Arms Act, 1959, which reads as follows : Previous sanction of the district magistrate necessary in certain cases : No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the district magistrate. So also it is necessary to consider section 397 of The IPC, which reads as follows : 5 Cri.Rev.No.37 of 2011 with Cri.Rev.No.48 of 2011 Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grevious hurt : If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grevious hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grevious hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. On perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that no previous sanction was obtained from the District Magistrate as required u/s. 39 of The Arms Act, and on that ground, the respondent was discharged from the offence punishable u/s. 3, 25 of The Arms Act. 6. On perusal of the entire charge sheet, I do not find that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation discloses that during the course of robbery, the offender used deadly weapon or causes grevious hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grevious hurt to any person. If the very ingredients of section for which the charge to be framed are not satisfied from the perusal of the statements recorded during the investigation, I do not find any fault with the order impugned by which the respondent was discharged by the learned Lower Court even for the offence punishable u/s. 397 of The IPC. 7. At this juncture, this Court need not enter into the merits of the case whether the material collected during the investigation is 6 Cri.Rev.No.37 of 2011 with Cri.Rev.No.48 of 2011 sufficient to convict or to acquit the accused, but to frame the charge for a particular offence, whether there is sufficient material to frame the charge or not is the only point for consideration. On acceptance of the material collected during the investigation, if prima facie it is not sufficient to frame the charge for a particular offence, then the accused to be discharged from the prosecution of that particular offence. 8. Bearing in mind this principle and on perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any fault with the order passed by the learned Lower Court. In view of this, both revisions stand failed and disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.rev.37-11