Decided on June 28,1999

STATE Appellant


- (1.) THIS petition of revision is directed against the order passed by the 1st. Addl. Session Judge, Jammu on 26.08.98. By the impugned order, learned Judge refused to take cognizance of the challan State v/s Joginder Lal Jain and Am. in which the accused have been charged for committing offences punishable under section 467,468,471,420 and 120 -B RPC on the ground, one that crime branch had no jurisdiction to investigate the aforesaid offences and two, that the charge against the accused is punishable under Section 7 of the J&K Grant of Permanent Residence certificate Act, 1963.
(2.) THE State has challenged the order on the ground that Crime Branch has been empowered to investigate the offence vide notification SRO 133 dated: 02.04.1991 issued under Section 4(l)(o) of the code of Criminal Procedure and the notification did not suffer from any deficiency. The finding of the trial court that J&K PRC Act 1963 being a special act, it ever -rides the general law is also challenged on the ground that the same has no application when the charge of forgery and personation is found established.
(3.) REFERING to the notification SRO 133 of 1991 the learned trial court while referring to the annexure to the notification observed as under: - As per annexure A  to the notification the following offences under the RPC are cognizable by the Crime Branch, Jammu: - (II)(a) Counterfeiting coins, note forgery and professional poisoning, falling in Chapter -XVIII, Sections 463 to 477 -A to 489 -E, 326 and 328 RPC. The other offences categorised under the said annexures are not relevant in the present case and as such need not be reflected in the order. The plain reading of the offences falling under annexure -A (ii) Sub -clause(a) it is only the offences regarding counter -feitin coins, note forgery, and professional poisoning which are cognizable by the Police Station Crime Branch. The present challan is not for any case of counterfeiting coins, note forgery or professional poisoning falling under Sections 467, 468, 471 RPC. Since the offences for which the charge sheet has been filed by the Police Station Crime Branch do not pertain to the matter concerning counterfeiting, note forgery and professional poisoning, no investigation could be conducted by the Police Station Crime Branch and no cognizance could be taken by the court on the basis of such charge sheet since the investigation had not been conducted by a Police Station competent to take cognizance in the matter. This approach however, is not in confirmity with the notification. Column 1 of the annexure is not exhaustive of the offences which are to be investigated by the Crime Branch. It has to be read in conjuction with column -2 where sections of the RPC and various other Acts have been specifically mentioned. But column -2 of the annexure has been completely ignored by the learned trial court. Chapter XVIII of the panel code deals with the offences relating to documents and property marks. This chapter comprises of Sections 463 to 489 -E. But Crime Branch has been empowered to investigate offences only under section 463 to 477 -A and 489 -A to 489 -E. Surprisingly, this aspect of the case has not been even noticed by the learned Session Judge before refusing to take cognizance of the case. Even while reading item -II(a) in first column of the Schedule undue emphasis has been placed on the word note forgery because counter -feiting, coining and note are separate from the word forgery.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.