Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 109 (JHR)

Shiv Prasad Sahu v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-02-05

D.K.SINHA

body2008
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the quashment of the entire FIR of Chirkunda (Galfarbari) P.S. Case No. 188 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 3348 of 2002 instituted against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 414/34, IPC pending before the CJM, Dhanbad for appropriate direction in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief fact of the case is that while the respondent No. 2 A.S.I. of Police was on patrolling duty, he received tip off that a truck No. BR 2A 3242 was carrying steam coal on the name of a factory which had no existence, on forged and fabricated document. On such information he intercepted the truck but the driver fled away and in course of search of the cabin of the truck, he found two Challans vide No. 14 dated 14.11.2003 with destination of the coal to Supreme Industries," Raniganj and another challan No. C-56718 dated 14.11.2003 issued by Sikni Coal Project, Latehar despatched to Supreme Industries, Chirkunda, Dhanbad with the name of the customer purchaser Md. Islam. Certain other discrepancies were also found between the Weigh Bridge Slip issued by Sikni Coal Project and the second Weigh Bridge Slip with the variation of weight of the steam coal in both the challans. Finding such discrepancies, the informant tried to find out the existence of Supreme Industries either at Chirkunda or at Raniganj but neither of the two could be traced out and finding that the fraud was played, he instituted FIR against the petitioner who is Transporter of Sahu Transport, the driver, purchaser and owner of the truck. The Transport challan was issued for the destination Supreme Industries, Raniganj (W.B.) whereas coal challan was for the destination Supreme Industries Chirkunda. 3. Heard the counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Tewari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner advanced the following submissions: (i) Md. Islam, who was dealing in coal, purchased 14.920 Metric Tons of coal from Sikni Coal Project, a Unit of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation under open sale system on the basis of which challan No. C-56718 was issued to him (Annexure 2). (ii) The petitioner is connected with the Transport Agency but separately deals in fireclay apart from the business of Transporter. (ii) The petitioner is connected with the Transport Agency but separately deals in fireclay apart from the business of Transporter. The only duty of the petitioner was to supply trucks to the consumers for transportation of their materials from one place to other against the commission paid to him. In the instant case, petitioner was neither the owner of the coal nor of the truck in question or in any manner connected with either party. 5. The Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited used to deal in coal through its Sikni Coal Unit on free sale basis and the coal since purchased from the said Corporation could be taken to any place in India without hindrance or violation of any relevant law. The coal, which was purchased by Md. Islam from Sikni Coal Project on 14.11.2003 was being taken to Chirkunda but in the meantime, it was intercepled by the respondent No. 2 on the way to Chirkunda. The prosecution failed to connect the petitioner transporter for the alleged offence under Sections 414/467/468/471 of IPC. 6. Finally Mr. Tewari attracted the attention that the FIR was instituted on 18.11.2003 but no final form under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure could be filed within 4 years for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, perhaps for his vested interest. 7. Finally, Mr. Tewari pointed out that in support of the contention, the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited issued a certificate in favour of Md. Islam, on demand, that he was D.O. holder and that truck No. BR 2A 3242 loaded with steam coal of 14,920 M.T. dispatched vide challan No. C-56718 dated 14.11.2003 from Sikni Coal Project to Supreme Industry, Chirkunda Dhanbad Jharkhand with the signature and seal of the authority. 8. In the counter-affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondents it was stated that the final form could not be submitted in this case because the matter was pending for the arrest of the petitioner and co-accused though attempt was made to arrest them. In support of the counter-affidavit the supervision notes of the Dy. S.P., Headquarter, Dhanbad have been annexed. Yet, the prosecution failed to demonstrate as to under what manner the offence against the petitioner, who was the Transporter was made out under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 414 r/w 34, IPC. In support of the counter-affidavit the supervision notes of the Dy. S.P., Headquarter, Dhanbad have been annexed. Yet, the prosecution failed to demonstrate as to under what manner the offence against the petitioner, who was the Transporter was made out under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 414 r/w 34, IPC. though admittedly, he was not at all concerned either with the coal or the truck in question and that he is simply a commission agent who in contact with the truck owners used to supply trucks to the needy. 9. The short question for consideration in the instant case is as to whether the petitioner-transporter has committed alleged offence in view of the alleged facts that two challans were found in the cabin of truck of different destinations different weighment receipts of coal. The first challan vide No. 14 dated 14.11.2003 was for the destination Raniganj, West Bengal but another challan No. C-56718 dated 14.11.2003 was for the destination Chirkunda (Jharkhand). I further find that the prosecution failed to connect either of the challan with the coal loaded on the truck by ascertaining its composite weight and comparing with either of the challan so as to pin point one of the alleged challans. Yet, the petitioner transporter in this case cannot be saddled with the criminal liabilities. 10. In the result, I find that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is unsustainable in Chirkunda (Galfarbari) RS. Case No. 188 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 3348 of 2002 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Dhanbad against the petitioner and accordingly it is set aside. This writ petition is allowed.