AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—What happed was that the applicant who has now come up before this Court u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code was hauled up in a case Crime No. 259 of 2002 u/s 3(i) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') vide first information report dated 17.12.2002, lodged against him at Police Station Cantt. District Kanpur Nagar
The first information report lodged by the Police Officer under the Act'' above was based on a first information report lodged against the applicant in Case Crime No. 254 of 2002 under Sections 407, 471 and 473 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Cantt. In which no offences mentioned in the Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code was given.
The aforesaid ''Act'' postulates the commission of an offence by the accused given in Chapters-XVI, XVII, XXII of Indian Penal Code but what happened that subsequently, when the charge-sheet was filed in Case Crime No. 254 of 2002, one of the sections of the aforesaid Chapter being Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code was included along with Sections 467, 471 and 473 of Indian Penal Code.
The contention raised in ST. No. 93 of 2003, before the Special Judge, U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Kanpur Nagar, in the discharge application from the side of the applicant was that since none of the sections enumerated in the aforesaid Chapter of Indian Penal Code were mentioned in the first information reports, no case under the aforesaid Act can proceed. Since the judge did not accept this contention by passing an order dated 1.10.2005, the accused has come to the High Court.
I have heard Sri B.N. Rai, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The point, therefore, to be considered is whether the case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, can proceed without any of Sections of the aforesaid Chapters of the Indian Penal Code, being mentioned in the first information report, and only, on the basis of any of the sections mentioned in the Charge-sheet?
The first information report and the charge-sheet are the two distinct documents. The first information report is the earliest information of an offence by the informant. Subsequent to filing of the first information report, an investigation is held in order to find out as to what offence has been committed. It is not necessary that the offence mentioned in the first information report should find place in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet need not correspond to the first information report. It is only after the case has been investigated that it can be decided as to what offence precisely has been committed. The description of the sections of the Indian Penal Code or any other Act in the first information report is based on an on the spot cursory assessment. It is only after full facts have come to light after investigation, that, it can be ascertained as to what offence has precisely been committed.
What is, therefore, relevant and significant is the enumeration of the offence in the charge-sheet and not in the first information reports, for example, a first information report can mention an offence of robbery u/s 392 Indian Penal Code but subsequently, an investigation may reveal that it is a case of theft u/s 379 Indian Penal Code and the charge-sheet will, therefore, be given u/s 379 of Indian Penal Code and thereafter, accused will be tried u/s 379 of India Penal Code. They cannot contend that since they mentioned an offence u/s 392 of Indian Penal Code in the first information report, the accused should be tried u/s 392 of Indian Penal Code.
The final verdict before trial on the part of the prosecution is that given in the charge-sheet and a First information report takes a back seat after the charge-sheet has been filed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant, in this regard is, therefore, unacceptable.
Application dismissed.