Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 795 (JHR)

Triloki Prasad Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2007-10-04

N.N.TIWARI

body2007
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this Cr MP the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 22.1.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Satgawa P.S. Case No. 6/02 (G.R. Case No. 42/02). By the impugned order the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 414 and 120B IPC against the petitioners. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the written report given by one Sarju Paswan, the FIR was lodged. According to the informant, on 22.1.2002 at about 9 P.M. he saw that a loaded tractor was coming from Village-Dhab and was going towards metal road. The petitioners were the occupants in the said Tractor. Sacks of wheat were found loaded on the Tractor. When the informant inquired from the petitioner No. 2, about the destination of wheat, loaded on Tractor, he replied that the informant has no business to make such enquiry or to ask about the destination of wheat etc. In the meanwhile, some villagers assembled and stopped the Tractor. When they asked about the wheat, the driver and the petitioner No. 2 jumped from the Tractor and fled away. However, the petitioner No. 1 was caught hold of by the villagers, No document in respect of wheat could be produced by him. It was guessed that the wheat must be of Public Distribution System and the same was being diverted for the purpose of black marketing. 3. The Tractor loaded with wheat and the petitioner No. 1 were handed over to the police. 4. On the basis of the said report, the Police registered a case under Sections 414 and 120B IPC against the petitioners. 5. The Police, thereafter, investigated the case. In course of investigation it was found by the Investigating Officer that 50 bags of wheat, each containing 50 K.G., were purchased by the petitioner No. 1 from different persons of the Village-Akbarpaur in the District of Nawada and he had also paid the Agriculture Market Committee Tax. Receipts were also produced before the Investigating Officer. The Deputy Superintendent of Police supervised the investigation and found the same, a case of mistake of fact. The final form was accordingly submitted after investigation. 6. On submission of final form the informant filed a protest petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. Receipts were also produced before the Investigating Officer. The Deputy Superintendent of Police supervised the investigation and found the same, a case of mistake of fact. The final form was accordingly submitted after investigation. 6. On submission of final form the informant filed a protest petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. Allowing the protest petition of the informant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the final form submitted by the Police and took cognizance of the offences under Sections 414 and 120B, IPC against the petitioners by the impugned order. 7. Mr. Dipak Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted, no case under Section 414, IPC is made out against the petitioners. In order to take cognizance under Section 414 IPC, there must be some material to show that the said articles were stolen articles. According to the prosecution case itself, the petitioner No. 2 was a Public Distribution Shop dealer. The stock of wheat is said to be allotted to him. The petitioner No. 2 was with the stock of the wheat and, therefore, there was no transfer of possession of the article and the same was in possession of the same person. However, there is no prima facie material on record to show that the said stock of wheat was allotted to the petitioner No. 2 for being sold under Public Distribution System. There were documents to show that wheat was purchased from the Village-Akbarpur from different persons and Agriculture Marketing Produce Tax was also duly paid. The Police investigated into the allegation and found the same a case of mistake of fact. There was no material on record to come to a different conclusion and take cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 414 and 120B, IPC. 8. Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioners said contentions and submitted that there was no document on record to show that the wheat belonged to the petitioner and was not meant for Public Distribution System. However, it would be evident from the prosecution case that wheat was transported in the night and the petitioner No. 2 and the driver jumped from the Tractor and fled away when the villagers tried to be satisfied about the article. However, it would be evident from the prosecution case that wheat was transported in the night and the petitioner No. 2 and the driver jumped from the Tractor and fled away when the villagers tried to be satisfied about the article. The said circumstances, thus, go to show that the stock of wheat was stolen and the same was begin transported for illegal purposes and as such the Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 414 and 120B, IPC against the petitioners. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. From the record it appears that it is an admitted case that the wheat was being transported in a Tractor and all the petitioners were the occupants of that Tractor. The stock of wheat is said to be allotted to Ravindra Prasad Yadav (petitioner No. 2), who according to the prosecution, happens to be a licensed dealer of the wheat. The said Revindra Prasad Yadav was very much there with the wheat which was being transported. Thus, there is no allegation of change of hands or transfer of possession of wheat from Ravindra Prasad Yadav to any other person and the same cannot be said to be stolen property. It was only guessed and suspected that the wheat was being carried in the night for illegal purposes. In order to take cognizance of the offence under Section 414, IPC prima facie material must exist on record for the satisfaction of the Magistrate having ingredients of assisting in concealing disposing of or making away of the property knowing the same to be stolen. There is even no such allegation to constitute the offence under Section 414, IPC. 10. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, mechanically and without applying his mind on the legal requirements for constitution of offences under Section 414, IPC, has erroneously and arbitrarily taken cognizance of the offences under Section 414 and 120B, IPC against the petitioners. I, therefore, find no ground for rejecting the final form submitted by the Investigation Officer and for taking cognizance of the said offences against the petitioners. 11. I, therefore, find no ground for rejecting the final form submitted by the Investigation Officer and for taking cognizance of the said offences against the petitioners. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order dated 22.1.2004 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 414 and 120B, IPC against the petitioners in connection with Satgawa P.S. Case No. 6/02 (G.R. Case No. 42/02) is held to be bad and unsustainable in law and is, hereby, quashed. This Cr MP is allowed.