The court ruled that prior exoneration does not prevent prosecution if new evidence arises, validating the cognizance taken against the petitioner for violations under IPC and the Arms Act.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

PRAYER:-

2. The present petition preferred by the petitioner for quashing of cognizance order dated 01.06.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No.112 of 2005 dated 24.04.2005 whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 109 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) as well as Section 30 of the ARMS ACT and for quashing the supplementary charge-sheet No.834 of 2020 dated 31.08.2020 submitted under Sections 109 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 30 of the ARMS ACT , as the same is based on no fresh materials having been found since the filing of the original charge-sheet No.124 of 2005 dated 09.07.2002 as well as 1^st supplementary charge-sheet No.118 of 2006 dated 13.04.2006, where the allegation was not found true. Further, for quashing of the sanction order dated 27.04.2022 granted by the State Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’) for the prosecution of the petitioner in connection with Saharsa P.S. Case No.112 of 2005 dated 24.04.2005, as the same is not in conformity with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

CASE HISTORY:

3. The case of prosecution, in short, is based upon self-statement of informant, namely, Anil Kumar Yadbandhu, S.H.O., Saharsa Sadar, that in compliance of Letter No.11026/76/2004 (Arms) dated 29.10.2014, Ministry of Home, Government of Bihar, one A.S.I., namely, Bal Krishna Jha collected the list of Arms License holders for verification and during the verification, it was found that seven arms license holders were unverified. It is alleged that the then licensing authority has issued the license without police verification. However, in Section 13 (2), it is clearly mentioned that after getting the verification report from the nearest police station and after verifying that the applicant is residing for last three years at the address given in forms, license could not be granted and it is also mentioned therein that the then licensing authority without following the legal provisions for wrongful gain and corrupt practices issued the license. On the aforementioned statements, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and other persons and an investigation started.

4. After investigation of the case, the police submitted its first charge-sheet No.124/2005 dated 09.07.2005 under Sections 109 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC only against one Om Prakash Tiwary. Thereafter, the police further submitted Supplementary Charge-sheet No.118 of 2006 dated 13.04.2006 under Sections 109 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC against 14 persons. Since the police did not find accusations against the petitioner, the case was closed against him.

5. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after submission of the charge-sheet vide order dated 20.05.2006 issued notice to the informant of the case. On 20.05.2006, the informant appeared before the learned trial court and filed a petition stating that he is satisfied with the final report, i.e. charge-sheet submitted by the police and he has no objection if the court accept the police report.

6. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Police Officer vide its letter No.3056 dated 26.11.2007 made a prayer to the trial court for re-investigation in