Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 185 (JHR)

Anant Narayan Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2010-02-02

D.K.SINHA

body2010
Judgment D.K.Sinha,J. Both the petitions are taken up together arising out of the almost common cause of action for the alleged offence under Sections 379/411/120B of the Indian Penal Code in respect of Nawadih P.S. Case No. 15 of 1996 instituted on 17.03.2006 on the written report of the informant Inspector of Police, Bermo at Tenughat. 2. The petitioner Anant Narayan Verma has requested for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2007 passed by Shri Manish Ranjan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat by which charge was framed against the petitioner and others. However, it was admitted in the Revision Petition that the petitioner Anant Narayan Verma along with the co-accused Anup Kumar Verma preferred a Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1213 of 2007 referred to above for the quashment of their entire criminal proceedings as well as the order impugned dated 18.06.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro by which the Cr. Revision No.86 of 2007 was dismissed affirming and upholding the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by Shri Manish Ranjan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat by which their petition for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected in Nawadih P.S. Case No. 15 of 1996. The relief as claimed by the petitioner in both the petitions are common and therefore taken up together. 3. The prosecution story in short was that when the Inspector of Police, Bermo raided the place of occurrence which was the West Bank of Kachnar River, on the tip off that the accused persons had been collecting steam coal or illegally transporting and smuggling it to the different markets of Banaras and Dehri-on-Sone, the informant and the police party found there a truck No. BRB 9309 and behind that a Maruti Van No. BR 20C 9300 and it was alleged that the occupants of both the vehicles started running away after jumping from the vehicles at the sight of the police party. However, it was alleged that both the petitioners Anant Narayan Verma & Anup Kumar Verma were apprehended along with the 3rd culprit Prakash Rana whereas the other accused persons made their good escape. However, it was alleged that both the petitioners Anant Narayan Verma & Anup Kumar Verma were apprehended along with the 3rd culprit Prakash Rana whereas the other accused persons made their good escape. On interrogation, the petitioner Anant Kumar Verma disclosed to be the owner of Truck No. BRB 9309 whereas the accused petitioner Anup Kumar Verma introduced himself as the driver of the said truck whereas Prakash Rana did not associate with the either truck or the Maruti Van. However, these accused persons disclosed the name of the other accomplice who escaped at the sight of the police party and the case was instituted against all the named accused persons including these two petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the petitions made a common submission that the coal loaded on the truck was claimed by one N.N.Sahay, who had filed a petition before the A.C.J.M. on 10.04.1996 for the release of his coal and on such petition a report was called for from the police but neither the report could be submitted by the police nor the coal was released in his favour. There was no allegation of theft reported by any concerned person so as to attract the provision of Section 379/411 I.P.C. Mr. Dayal, learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution failed to bring out prima facie material that the occurrence as alleged was given effect to in prosecution of criminal conspiracy and that the petitioners were the members of such criminal conspiracy. The entire allegation was based upon conjectures and surmises at the instance of the informant Police Inspector. The petitioners are the owner and the driver of the truck in question and that the truck was a commercial vehicle used to be given to the needy person on hire and for such reason also the petitioners cannot be saddled with their criminal liability in the instant case. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and explained that both the petitioners were apprehended by the police party while they were trying to run away from the place of occurrence and that they were carrying the coal from Koel Karo Project illegally and no document was produced on demand by the petitioners. They had confessed their guilt that they were smuggling the coal to the market of Banaras and Dehri-on-Sone. 6. They had confessed their guilt that they were smuggling the coal to the market of Banaras and Dehri-on-Sone. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that the petitioners were apprehended at the spot while they were trying to run away from the place of occurrence at the sight of the police party. The petitioners are admittedly the owner and driver of the truck which was carrying coal at their instance without valid paper and that the charge has already framed against them for the alleged offence under Sections 379/411 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of prima facie material available against them. Learned Counsel Mr. Dayal failed to show any ground in favour of the petitioners and though he consistently argued that the coal loaded on the truck was claimed by one N.N.Sahay but no order for release of the said coal was passed in favour of such claimant and in that manner also the petitioner could not be able to establish their defence that they were transporting the coal against valid documents of the so-called claimant. 7. There being no merit, both the petitions are dismissed.