Nitesh Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.138 of 2018 Nitesh Agrawal, S/o Gulabchand Agrawal, aged 30 years, R/o In front of Town Hall, Raigarh, P.S. Kotwali, Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant :

Shri Tarkeshwar Nahak, Advocate For Respondent :

Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 25.10.2018 1.

With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2.

The instant revision is directed against the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (henceforth 'the Act'), Raigarh in Case No.1 of 2016, whereby the Learned Special Judge has framed charges against the present Applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.

3.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that he confines his arguments only to Charge No.6 framed by the Special Judge, whereby the Special Judge has framed the said charge stating that the present accused/Applicant along with other co-

accused has cheated Complainant Motiram Rathiya, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe and the said act of cheating falls within the purview of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more and thus, the present Applicant has also committed the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. He further submits that the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for a term of maximum 7 years not for a term of 10 years or more. Therefore, charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, prima facie, is not made out against the present Applicant. 4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent submits that apart from the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, other charges are also framed against the present Applicant under Sections 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and out of them, the offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of 10 years. However, he submits that due to typographical error, charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been mentioned in Charge No.6.

5.

Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act reads as under: "3.

Punishments for offences of atrocities.- xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- xxxx xxxx xxxx (v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a

term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;"

6.

A bare perusal of the above-quoted provision of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act makes it clear that since offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more, framing of Charge No.6 by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law.

7.

Resultantly, the revision is allowed in part. Charge No.6 is quashed. It is directed that the Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, shall frame Charge No.6 afresh in accordance with law. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE Gopal