Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 823
(Rajasthan High Court)
State of Rajasthan Vs. Salman Khan & Ors. (Mehta, J.)
HON'BLE SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
State of Rajasthan
Versus
Salman Khan & Ors.
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.633, 905, 906 and 907 of 2006,
decided on 24.07.2012
R.L. Jangid, Sr.Adv. & AAG a/w Mahipal Bishnoi, for Petitioner-State;
Shrikant Shivde, K.K. Vyas, H.M. Saraswat and Manish Chitara, for Respondents;
Sanjeet Purohit, for Wild Life Trust of India
Headnote:Penal Code, Secs. 141, 147, 147, 148, 149; Arms Act, 1959, Sec. 27; Wild Life (Protection Act, Secs. 51 and 52 — As to whether the provisions of chapter VIII of the IPC can be applied to the offences other than those affecting the human body or public peace? — Held — A damage caused to the wild life is a loss to the ecology which can be considered to be a loss to the public and society at large — By the act of using fire arms for killing wild life, the accused committed offence of mischief as defined u/S. 425 and 429 IPC — The provisions of Sec. 141 IPC will apply and the offence u/S. 147 IPC cannot be applied — Impugned order discharging the accused from the offence u/S. 147 and 148 IPC and Sec. 27 of Arms Act affirmed but is set aside to the extent discharging from the offence u/S. 52 of the Act read with Sec. 149 IPC.
Revision petitions partly allowed. (Paras 16 to 22)
n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 141] 147] 148] 149( vk;q) vf/kfu;e] 1959] /kkjk 27( oU; tho ¼laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 19] /kkjk 51 o 52 & D;k Hkk-n-la- ds v/;k; VIII ds izko/kkuksa dks ekuo 'kjhj ;k yksd 'kkfUr dks izHkkfor djus okys vijk/kksa ls fHkUu vijk/kksa esa ykxw fd;k tk ldrk gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & oU; thoksa dks dkfjr {kfr ifjfLFkfr dks igqapk x;k uqdlku gS ftls vketu o lekt dks igqapk;h xbZ {kfr ds :i esa ekuk tk ldrk gS & oU; thoksa dks ekjus gsrq vkXus; vL=ksa dk iz;ksx djus ds d`R; ls vfHk;qDr us Hkk-n-la- dh /kkjk 425 o 429 Hkk-n-la- ds rgr ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fjf"V dk vijk/k dkfjr fd;k & /kkjk 141 Hkk-na-la ds izko/kku ykxw gksaxs rFkk /kkjk 147 Hkk-n-la- ds rgr vijk/k dks ykxw ugha fd;k tk ldrk & Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 147 o 148 ds rgr o vk;q) vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds rgr vijk/k ls vfHk;qDr dks eqDr djus ds vk{ksfir vkns'k dh iqf"V dh ysfdu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 52 lifBr /kkjk 149 Hkk-na-la- ds rgr vijk/k ls eqDr djus dh lhek rd vikLr fd;kA
iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk va'kr% Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 16 ls 22½
2. The instant four revision petitions have been preferred by the State of Rajasthan assailing the order dated 4.5.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur whereby four revision petitions filed by the accused respondents herein against the order dated 20.2.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur were partly allowed.
3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that upon a complaint being filed by the State of Rajasthan through the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Wild Life, Jodhpur, the learned trial judge i.e. the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur by his order dated 20.2.2006 proceeded to record pre-charge evidence and then directed framing of charges against the respondents herein for the offences as stated below :-
Salman Khan - U/S 148 IPC, Sec. 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Saif Ali Khan
Sonali Bendre
Neelam
Tabbasum
Dushyant Singh U/S 147 IPC, Sec. 51 of Wild Life (Protection)Act read with Section 149 IPC and in the alternative, Section 52 of Wild Life (Protection) Act.
4. The respondents herein approached the learned revisional court by filing four revision petitions being Revision No.15/06 (Saif Ali), Revision No.16/06 (Neelam), Revision No.18/06 (Salman Khan, Tabbasum & Sonali) and Revision No.20/06 (Dushyant Singh). All the revisions were heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur by common order dated 4.5.2006 and the learned revisional court accepted the revisions and directed the respondents herein to be discharged from the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act whilst direction to frame charges under Sections 51 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act was affirmed. The State of Rajasthan has challenged the said order dated 4.5.2006 passed by the learned revisional court by way of these filing four separate revision petitions.
5. Assailing the order passed by the learned revisional court, Mr.R.L. Jangid, learned senior counsel cum Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the revisional court has committed a serious error of law and facts in discharging the accused persons from the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC. It is submitted that the view taken by the revisional court that the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code apply only in relation to the offences committed against the human body, is absolutely erroneous. Laying stress on the definition of the term 'offence' under Section 40 IPC, it was submitted that 'offence' as defined in the said Section also covers within its ambit, the 'offence' referred to in Section 141 IPC, particularly, when the same is to be considered in reference to any special or local law. It was thus urged that the revisional court's order discharging the respondents from the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act was absolutely illegal. In support of his contentions, learned Addl. Advocate General placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of :
(1) AIR 1989 SC 1 (State of Bihar. vs. Murad Ali Khan and others.)
(2) (2006) 4 SCC 278 (Standard Chartered Bank. vs. Directorate of Enforcement.) (3) (2010) 5 SCC 600 (S.Khushboo. vs. Kanniammal.)
(4) (2010) 10 SCC 604 (Sansar Chand. vs. State of Rajasthan.)
(5) (2011) 11 SCC 214 (Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)
6. So far as the order passed by the learned revisional court regarding the discharge of Salman Khan from the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, learned Addl. Advocate General fairly conceded that another charge-sheet for the very same set of allegations and for the very same offence has already been filed against the accused in the competent court and he is being tried for the same.
7. In the written submissions
