Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 950 (JHR)

BHAVNEET SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2004-09-16

M.Y.EQBAL

body2004
Judgment : ( 1 ) IN this criminal revision application filed under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 6-6-2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bokaro in G. R. case No. 11 /2001 whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and they were directed to be present for framing of charge. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of a written complaint filed by the excise Inspector before the Officer Incharge of Bokaro police station. For the years 2000-2001, in the district of Bokaro, 48 retail foreign liquor shops and 23 spiced country spirit shops were settled in one lot with the petitioners as also one Hardip Singh and deepak Kumar Patel by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. It was alleged that the licensees were not able to lift the required quota of liquor and thereby caused losses of revenue. On raid being conducted by the excise department, large number of liquors obtained from unauthorized sources, were recovered which resulted in cancellation of the shops being Nos. 21 and 31 which were fixed for re-auction. It was alleged that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged upto the Member Board of Revenue in revision and the order was stayed. The allegation is that although there was no stay of the auction of the shops in question but the petitioners misrepresented before the authorities and gave wrong information to a Government servant in order to mislead them. ( 3 ) THE Magistrate, after hearing the petitioners on the discharge petition and after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the allegation discloses an offence punishable under sections 469/ 468/471/420 and 409 of the Indian Penal code. The Magistrate also recorded a finding that prima facie it is evident that the accused persons misrepresented and falsely communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, bokaro that the Board of Revenue stayed the re-auction of all 31 foreign made wine shops and 21 spiced country made wine shops. ( 4 ) MR. Jerath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has drawn my attention to several documents annexed with the application and submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners never misrepresented or communicated wrong information to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. ( 4 ) MR. Jerath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has drawn my attention to several documents annexed with the application and submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners never misrepresented or communicated wrong information to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. ( 5 ) IT is well settled that the object of revisional jurisdiction as envisaged in section 401 Cr. P. C. is to confer upon superior criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity or procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. Where the Court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. ( 6 ) IN the instant case Mr. Jerath, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners tried to show by referring the documents that no case is made out against the petitioners but the Magistrate, from perusal of other materials, came to prima facie finding that a case is made out against the petitioners. Admittedly there is no irregularity of procedure or misconception of law or any error of law committed by the Magistrate in rejecting the discharge petition. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned order needs no interference at this stage. The points raised by the petitioners and the documents relied upon by them, needs inquiry which can be done only at the trial stage and not at the stage of framing of charge. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed. --- *** --- .