Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4458 of 2011 Revisionist :- Raju @ Raj Kumar Manglik & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This revision is directed against the order dated 15.10.2011 passed by the A.C.J.M., Court No.6. Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 5766/2010 (State Vs. Raj Kumar and others) relating to Case Crime No. 35/2010, under Sections 41/102 Cr.P.C. and Sections 414 IPC and 25 Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972, Police Station Lisari Gate, District Meerut, whereby the discharge application of the revisionists has been dismissed.
Argument of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the court below has not considered that the statue recovered is not connected with any offence and therefore, the revisionists cannot be prosecuted under Section 414 Cr.P.C.
As per Section 26 of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972, the prosecution of the applicant is barred without sanction from the competent Officer of the Government. The court below has not considered the provisions of Section 26 of the Act aforesaid and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated.
Learned AGA for the State has argued that the question, whether the recovered statue is stolen article or not, is yet to be determined. The court below has rightly recorded the finding that the application for discharge is not maintainable at this stage.
Section 26 of Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972, is relevant :-
"26. Cognizance of offences (1) No prosecution for an offence under sub-section (1) of section 25 shall be instituted except by or with the sanction of such officer of Government as may be prescribed in this behalf.
(2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 25 except upon complaint in writing made by an officer generally or specially authorized in this behalf by the Central Government.
(3) No court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence punishable under this Act."
A perusal of the sub Section 2 of the aforesaid Section shows that no court can take congnizance of an offence punishable under Section 25 of Act except complaint in writing made by an Officer or specially authorized on behalf of the Central Government.
Before application of the aforesaid provision, the court has to determine whether article recovered is included in the definition of "Antiquities" define 2 (1) (a) or not. Unless the article is found in piece of antiquities, the provision of Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972, will not apply at this stage.
This issue has not been decided by the trial court.
The issue shall be examined by the court at the trial stage, if raised.
Rejection of the application for discharge of the applicant cannot be faulted at this stage.
Consequently, this Revision is dismissed.
The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within 10 days.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Ruchi Agrahari