RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
R.S.Chauhan, Veerender Singh Siradhana, JJ.
Banne Singh @ Pahalwan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1254 of 2008.
Decided On : 15-01-2014
JUDGMENT - Banne Singh @ Pahalwan has challenged the judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced him as under:- U/s. 411 IPC : Three Years rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, one months further rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 413 IPC : Life imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. U/s. 14/25(2) AAT Act : Four months rigorous imprisonment. (All the sentence are to run concurrently) However, the learned Judge has acquitted him of offences under Sections 379/120B, 413/120B, 414, 414/120B and 401 IPC and for offences under Sections 3/25(1) and 5/25(2) of the Antique & Art Treasure Act, 1972 (AAT Act, for short).
Fact of the Case:
In the year 2002, two FIRs, namely FIR No. 128/02 and FIR No. 142/02 were registered at Police Station Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for offence under Section 411 IPC. These FIRs were not registered against the present appellant; they were against other persons. While investigating these two FIRs, the police discovered that allegedly there was a gang operating in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh which was indulging in stealing antique sculptures and artifacts, and in exporting and selling them abroad. It was also discovered that Jaipur is the epicentre of their nefarious activities. In order to carry out an extensive investigation with regard to these activities, Mr. Anand Srivastava, the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (North), constituted a team of investigators. The team kept surveillance over the alleged offenders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the recovered items were, indeed, 'antiques'. This was a gaping hole in the prosecution case. Hence, even if the prosecution witnesses were to be believed that the sculptures were allegedly recovered from the appellant's house and farm, even then the prosecution has been unsuccessful to establish the offence under Section 14 read with Section 25(2) of the AAT Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had the territorial jurisdiction to try the appellant. 2. Whether the appellant could be convicted for offence under Section 413 IPC without a previous conviction under Section 411 IPC. 3. Whether the prosecution had established that the recovered sculptures were 'antiques'.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had the territorial jurisdiction to try the appellant as the recoveries were made from his house and farm located in village Rudhapura in District Karauli, which was within the jurisdiction of Police Station Vidyadhar Nagar and Jaipur. 2. The court held that the appellant could not be convicted for offence under Section 413 IPC without a previous conviction under Section 411 IPC. The court reasoned that the word 'habit' or 'habitually' would necessarily imply repetitive conduct or action. Thus, it requires previous convictions under Section 411 IPC. 3. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the recovered sculptures were 'antiques'. The court found that the prosecution had not examined any expert from the fields of art, art history, and archaeology, nor submitted any documentary proof to substantiate its case that the sculptures recovered from the appellant were 'antiques'.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was accepted. The judgment dated 20-11-2008 was quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Sections 411, and 413 IPC, and under Section 14 read with Section 25(2) of the AAT Act was quashed and set aside. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.
U/s. 411 IPC : Three Years rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, one months further rigorous imprisonment.
U/s. 413 IPC : Life imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
U/s. 14/25(2) AAT Act : Four months rigorous imprisonment.
(All the sentence are to run concurrently)
Ayub alias Pappukhan Nawabkhan Pathan v. S.N. Sinha AIR 1990 SC 2069
Birad Mal Singhvi v Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796
Chaman Lal v State of Punjab AIR 1970 SC 1372
Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police AIR 1966 SC 1766
Dropti Devi v. Union of India (UOI) (2012) 7 SCC 499
Gopalanchari v. State of Kerala AIR 1981 SC 674
Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1975) 3 SCC 198
Hazi Mohammed Ikramaul Haque v. State of West Bengal AIR 1959 SC 488
Kubic Darusz v. Union of India (UOI) (1990) 1 SCC 568
Limbaji v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 10 SCC 340
Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M. M. Mehta
Rekha v. State of T.N. (2011) 5 SCC 244
State of Himachal Pradesh v Jai Lal AIR 1999 SC 3318
State of Maharashtra v. Mehamud (2007) 12 SCC 358
Trimbak v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 39
Vijay Amba Das Diware v. Balkrishna Waman Dande (2000) 4 SCC 126
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.