Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 736 (JHR)

Md. Sayeed v. State of Jhrkhand (through CBI)

2007-09-13

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2007
Order Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised two contentions:- ( i ) The review is maintainable in view of the fact that Section 3 (2) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 would provide that the provision of the Order XXVII of the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to proceedings for an order of attachment under the Ordinance as they apply to suits by the Government and. therefore, this cannot be considered to be criminal proceeding and on the other hand, this being a civil proceeding, review maintainable, as there is no bar. (ii) Even though the District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, he did not carefully consider the fact that the property in dispute was not acquired under the scorn and though application was filed before this Court pending appeal to accept the additional documents to prove his defence, the same has not been considered by this Court and, therefore, the ground for review is maintainable. 3. In our view, both the grounds are not valid for the following reasons:- 4. Firstly, of course it is true that under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, the provision of the Order XXVII of the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to proceedings for an order of attachment under the Ordinance as they apply to suits by the Government but this provision will not be taken to mean that the entire proceeding is civil proceeding and Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applied. As a matter of fact the name of the Ordinance itself is "Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944". 5. The application under Section 3(2) to be filed by the State Government or the Central Government when any person has committed any scheduled offence may, whether or not any Court has taken cognizance of the offence, authorize the making of an application to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the said person ordinarily resides. So it refers to the offence committed as well as cognizance to be taken. Therefore the entire reading of the Section of the Ordinance would indicate that the proceeding is not actually under Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the Ordinance itself is called Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance. So it refers to the offence committed as well as cognizance to be taken. Therefore the entire reading of the Section of the Ordinance would indicate that the proceeding is not actually under Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the Ordinance itself is called Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance. As a matter of fact the petitioner had earlier filed revision under Section 397 Cr. P.C, against the order of attachment and when the revision was pending the petitioner thought it fit to file an application under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for conversion of revision into appeal. 6. Secondly, even assuming that review is maintainable, no ground is made out for review. Review would be made when there is an apparent error on the face of the record. There is no such error in this matter. Only point urged is that non-consideration of some documents, filed before this Court during the pendency of 1he appeal. Admittedly, the documents were not filed before the District Judge at the time of hearing in spite of opportunities given to the petitioner. 7. In an appellate jurisdiction, we are only concerned with validity of the order impugned. We have considered the same and found no illegality in the said order and so dismissed the appeal. As such there is no error on the face of the record. So Review petition is dismissed.