Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1219 (PAT)

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2003-11-25

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2003
Judgment 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.11.2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 11977 of 2003; Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2. In simple terms the learned Judge has declined to exercise his prerogative writ jurisdiction in interfering with the matter. What is the matter about? The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur was required to issue a character certificate to the petitioner which if issued would have been entitled him to pick up a State contract. The District Magistrate expressed his inability to issue a character certificate. The order by which he declined to do so is dated 24 October, 2003. 3. Since the learned Judge declined to interfere in the writ application, thus, the present letters patent appeal. The order of the learned Judge is reproduced below; "This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.10.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur whereby the character certificate granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a convict under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and the appeal against the order of conviction is pending before this Court. Dr. Sadanand Jha appears on behalf of the petitioner. J.C. to G.R 2 appears on behalf of the State. Petitioner, being a convict under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, I am of the opinion that the District Magistrate did not err in cancelling the character certificate of the petitioner. I find no merit in this application and it is accordingly, dismissed in limine." 4. The Court has heard the argument on behalf of the petitioner-appellant and perused the record of the writ petition as also the letters patent appeal. 5. If the criminals and convicts cannot be in politics, they cannot be in State contracts business also. Everyone wishes such persons out of the scene of politics and business with State contracts. But there is never any dearth of claims to be brought in court. If the court were to make a mistake to interfere on the writ petition then the petitioner-appellant would virtually get the order of the District Magistrate on a platter. 6. There was a Session Trial No. 166 of 1992; State vs. Vijay Choudhary, Saroj Thakur, Ramadhar Choudhary, Arvind Choudhary and Narain Thakur. If the court were to make a mistake to interfere on the writ petition then the petitioner-appellant would virtually get the order of the District Magistrate on a platter. 6. There was a Session Trial No. 166 of 1992; State vs. Vijay Choudhary, Saroj Thakur, Ramadhar Choudhary, Arvind Choudhary and Narain Thakur. Vijay Choudhary happens to be Vijay Kumar Sharma, the petitioner. 7. The issue before the learned Sessions is reproduced below : "(i) Whether or not said Ashok Choudhary died in violent death in an around the alleged time of occurrence claimed by the prosecution and (ii) whether or not the said five accused actively and knowingly caused the death of said Ashok Choudhary in the manner as narrated by the prosecution on the alleged place of occurrence with full criminal intent to cause the death of Ashok Choudhary." 8. However, the matter was dealt with in the trial in the context of Vijay Choudhary alias Vijay Kumar Sharma. The following passage of the judgment is relevant, which is reproduced below : "Upon the discussions above of entire facts, evidence and circumstances on record I find and hold on the point of present question that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that on the date of occurrence in the evening all the five accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder of Ashok Choudhary and that they surrounded "Ashok Choudhary with that intention and that while accused Saroj Thakur, Ramadhar Choudhary, Arvind Choudhary and Narain Thakur caught hold of Ashok Choudhary accused Vijay Choudhary shot Ashok Choudhary with his pistol in the abdomen of Ashok Choudhary causing serious injury which ultimately resulted in the death of Ashok Choudhary." 9. The Court can hardly certifiy that the District Magistrate committed any error in not being able to or expressed his inability to grant a character certificate to a convicted person. 10. Dismissed.