Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 127 (JHR)

Rana Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2007-02-27

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, D.P.SINGH

body2007
Judgment D.P. Singh, J.- This appeal has been preferred by the appellants facing trial in S.T. Case No. 168 of 2001 before the Cour1 of Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Fast Track Cour1 No. III, Ranchi against an order dated 15.7.2004 by which the learned trial court rejected the petition dated 12.5.2003, 29.8.2003, 15.9.2003 and 18.6.2004 and refused to file a complaint against one Renu Kumari P.w. 9, for her alleged appearance as a witness and to depose falsely against the appellants under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The present appeal preferred under Section 341 Cr.P.C., in the month of November 2004 has been admitted after condonation of delay. The learned single Judge on 10.2.2005 has further stayed the proceedings of sessions trial no. 168 of 2001 and issued notice to respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6. The learned single Judge vide order dated 22.6.2005 referred the matter for decision to a larger Bench. As such the present appeal has been placed• before us for deciding the issue in accordance with the provisions of law. 2. Respondent No.3 Rekha Kumari preferred not to file appearance and counter affidavit in this appeal. However respondent no. 4, officer-in-charge, Jagarnathpur Police Station, Ranchi has appeared and filed a counter affidavit dated 14.3.2005 denying the allegations. But respondent no. 5 Arun Kumar who is also respondent no. 6 being informant in Jagarnathpur Police Station case no. 50 of 2000 in spite of appearing through Vakalatnama of Sri Khatri, Advocate, has preferred not to file any counter affidavit in this context. 3. The main grievance raised in this memo of appeal from the side of the appellants is that the learned trial court in spite of objections raised regarding the genuineness and identify of P.W 9 Renu Kumari has failed to pass appropriate order under the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. Sri G.C. Sahu, Advocate for the appellants contended before us that the appellants raised doubts regarding the genuineness and identity of respondent no. 3 as an imposter in place of Renu Kumari, but she was examined in the court as witness without deciding this issue. Sri Sahu further contended that the petition dated 12.5.2003 and further objections raised by them on various dates were ignored by the learned trial court and ultimately rejected by impugned order dated 15.7.2004 without deciding the merit of the allegations made in the petition. 4. Sri Sahu further contended that the petition dated 12.5.2003 and further objections raised by them on various dates were ignored by the learned trial court and ultimately rejected by impugned order dated 15.7.2004 without deciding the merit of the allegations made in the petition. 4. In this context learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2001 (9) SCC 742 and AIR 2003 SC 541 . According to Sri Sahu the trial court is required to make preliminary inquiries regarding the allegation and to pass appropriate orders, which was not done, in the present case. Our attention has been drawn towards the order passed by the trial court on 12.5.2003, 19.5.2003, 29.8.2003, 18.4.2004 and 15.7.2004. According to Sri Sahu the identity of the witness P.W 9 Renu Kumari was falsely asserted by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 as well as APP and Officer-in-Charge but the trial court without holding preliminary enquiry rejected the petition through the impugned order dated 15.7.2004. 5. We have considered the provisions in such facts under section 195(B)(1) Cr.P.C. alongwith the provisions under Sections 193 to 196 Indian Penal Code. We have further considered the provisions for taking cognizance on such offences under the scheme of Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. The Act manifestly provides the conditions in which offence affecting administration of justice is required to be dealt with by the trial court. The trial court has been given ample scope to take cognizance on such offences when such offence has been committed in a proceeding before it. The alleged offence of appearance by respondent no. 3 impersonating Renu Kumari as P.W 9 was required to be enquired upon by the trial court because such appearance was made before the trial court as such witness. Clause 1 of the said Section 340 Cr.P.C. specifically mentions that in the interest of justice the enquiry can be made. The lower court record does not mention that any such enquiry under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. was made on the petitions filed by the appellants before it on 12.5.2003, 29.8.2003, 15.9.2003 and 18.6.2004. 6. Sri Khatri learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the submissions. However the informant has preferred not to file any counter affidavit in this context. The respondent no. 3 has failed to appear and file any counter affidavit in this context. 6. Sri Khatri learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the submissions. However the informant has preferred not to file any counter affidavit in this context. The respondent no. 3 has failed to appear and file any counter affidavit in this context. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that the trial court should have enquired into the matter under the provisions of law. Accordingly, we find and hold that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 15.7.2004, with direction to make an enquiry and conclude the same within one month from the date of receipt of L.C.A. after giving opportunity to both sides and to proceed in accordance with law. Amareshwar Sahay, J.-I agree.