Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 795 (JHR)

Ashok Singh v. State of Bihar

2002-07-30

VISHNUDEO NARAYAN

body2002
JUDGMENT : Vishnudeo Narayan, J.-This revision has been directed by the petitioners against the order dated 10.4.1996 passed by Sri S.P. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 2800 of 1994 (Jharia P.S. Case No. 299 of 1994) under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder prayer of the petitioners to discharge them in this case has been rejected. 2. A case under section 414 I. P. C. for storing illegal iron scraps about 20 tonnes suspected to be stolen property has been instituted on 30.7.1994 at 19.00 hours on the basis of the self statement of O/C Bijendra Kumar Das of Jharia P.S. It has been stated in the self statement of the informant that on confidential information a raid was conducted at the god own of petitioner no. 1 Ashok Singh situated at Baniyahir, P.S. Jharia in presence of the independent witnesses and seeing the police force four or five persons present in the said god own fled away scaling the boundary wall and one Kishan Rajwar was apprehended who disclosed that this godown belongs to petitioners Ashok Singh and Ram Sewak Singh. It is also alleged that iron scraps in large quantity was found in the said god own which was seized and a seizure list was prepared and a case under section 414 I.P.C. was instituted against the petitioners. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case on 9.9.1994 under section 414 I.P.C. against the petitioners and cognizance was accordingly taken in the case against the petitioners and the case was transferred to the court of Sri A.K. Srivastava, J.M., Dhanbad for disposal. 3. The petitioners filed a petition on 15.7.1995 praying therein to discharge them in this case on the ground that charge against the petitioners is groundless and there is no material at all in this case for framing charge against them. The learned court below rejected the prayer of the petitioners and framed charge against the petitioners for the offence under section 414 I.P.C. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order aforesaid preferred' Cr. Revision No. 81 of 1995(R) before this Court which was allowed on 30.10.1995 and the impugned order dated 15.7.1995 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned court below for fresh consideration on the point of discharge. Revision No. 81 of 1995(R) before this Court which was allowed on 30.10.1995 and the impugned order dated 15.7.1995 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned court below for fresh consideration on the point of discharge. The matter of discharge of the petitioners for the offence under section 414 I.P.C. was heard on remand by the learned court below and vide order dated 10.4.1996 the prayer for discharge was again rejected by the learned court below on the mere ground that investigating officer had suspicion that the seized iron scraps are not the iron scraps auction purchased by the petitioners which gives rising suspicion about the seized iron scraps being stolen property and in this view of the matter it cannot be said that the charge against the petitioner is groundless in spite of the fact that I.O. in para 57 and 60 of the case diary has stated that petitioner Ashok Singh had purchased iron scraps of auction sale on 7.7.94, 8.6.94 and 14.6.94 and also purchased spring patti of truck from Jagclish Shaw and Raju Shaw on 15.7.1994 and 10.7.1994 coupled with the fact that there is no whisper in the case diary that the afore•• said seized iron scraps are stolen properties. 4. Assailing the impugned order of the learned court below it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned order of the learned court below is perverse and against the materials in the case diary and is merely based on conjectures and surmises. It has also been submitted that suspicion of the I.O. regarding the recovered iron scraps not being those iron scraps of auction purchased by the petitioner Ashok Singh can never be the basis for the prosecution of the petitioners in this case as suspicion howsoever great cannot take the place of proof. It has further been submitted that the articles seized from the god own of the petitioner Ashok Singh are his lawfully purchased articles for which there are authentic documents granted by the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., and several other persons and this fact has been verified by the I.O. in course of the investigation in respect of which a reference stands made in para 57 and 60 of the case diary. Ltd., and several other persons and this fact has been verified by the I.O. in course of the investigation in respect of which a reference stands made in para 57 and 60 of the case diary. It has also been submitted that the case diary does not show that the seized iron scraps are stolen properties and no case of any theft stands recorded and there is also no claimant in respect thereof and the learned C.J.M. on the report of the I.O. has released the seized articles in favour of the petitioner Ashok Singh vide order dated 30.8.1994 and the C.J.M. has specifically stated in the order aforesaid that on the materials available on the record it appears that the case diary does not indicate that iron materials seized are the stolen property whereas the papers with regard to purchase of the iron scraps seized in this case have been found to be genuine by the I.O. 5. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that para 58 of the case diary shows that it could not be made clear in course of investigation that what materials in the iron scraps and in what quantity have been purchased from Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Jamadoba and the employees of the said Company also did not explain anything in respect thereof which has given rise of suspicion to the I.O. regarding the seized iron scraps to be stolen properties. 6. There is no denying the fact that iron scrap in huge quantity was recovered and seized from the godown of the petitioners Ashok Singh and Ram Sevak Singh who are said to be the owner of the said godown. Para 57 and 60 of the case diary clearly indicate that petitioner Ashok Singh is a bona fide purchaser for value of the aforesaid iron scraps in auction purchase. Not only this, the document of purchase of the said scrap was also verified by the I.O. which was found to be genuine and valid. There is no whisper in the case diary that the seized iron scraps are stolen properties and also no claimant has come forward to claim the aforesaid properties. The case diary is conspicuously silent regarding institution of any case of theft in respect thereof. There is no whisper in the case diary that the seized iron scraps are stolen properties and also no claimant has come forward to claim the aforesaid properties. The case diary is conspicuously silent regarding institution of any case of theft in respect thereof. In view of the materials aforesaid it cannot be said that the seized iron scraps are stolen properties recovered from the unlawful possession of the petitioners. Suspicion howsoever great cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, there is no material at all in this case for prosecuting the petitioners. 7. Viewed thus, the charge against the petitioners is definitely groundless. The learned court below has gravely erred in rejecting the prayer for discharge of the petitioners despite the direction of this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 81 of 1995(R) to consider afresh the prayer of the petitioner for discharge. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned court below is illegal and perverse. There is merit in the revision and it succeeds. The revision is hereby allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and all the petitioners are discharged in this case.