Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 495 (JHR)

Mahesh Prasad Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-06-14

JAYA ROY

body2011
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the Opp. Party No.2 and the counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant revision application for setting aside the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Latehar in connection with S.C./S.T. case No. 6/2009 arising out of complaint case No.164 of 2008 whereby and where under the court below has rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for his discharge. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Jawahar Ram has filed the complaint case before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar on 1.8.2008 stating therein that on 27.5.2008 at about 10.30 A.M. when he went to his office to meet Mahendra Ram who was on duty and sat in his office, the accused –petitioner namely Mahesh Prasad Singh, the Sectional Engineer, under whom the complainant was working as M.C.M. Fitter, came there and told him to get up from the chair and when the complainant asked him for the reasons, he said that “you are a Harijan – Chamar, and you have got no right to sit over the chair” and when the complainant made protest, the accused –petitioner forcibly turned down him from the chair and got him out from the office. He has also assaulted the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was examined on oath and two witnesses have also been examined. As there was sufficient materials for proceeding against the accused-petitioner, the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 323 /341 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(10) of the S.C./S.T. Act. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case only due to some grudge against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner had made complaint against the present complainant and Vishnudeo, who has been examined in the present case as P.W.-2 as both of them after consuming liquor, had come to duty and abused the petitioner as well as given threatening to the petitioner, but the matter was pacified by Deonarayan Yadav and Raj Kumar Paswan. But, as the complainant and the P.W.2 are facing departmental proceeding, the complainant has implicated the present petitioner in this case. But, as the complainant and the P.W.2 are facing departmental proceeding, the complainant has implicated the present petitioner in this case. When the complainant came to learn about the initiation of the departmental proceeding at the instance of the petitioner, he lodged the present case on 1.8.2008 much after the alleged occurrence i.e. 27.5.2008. 3.The counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that the court below has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for discharge. He has further contended that the court below, after taking considerations of the materials, which have come against the present petitioner, has rightly held that on the basis of materials available on the record there is prima facie case under Section 3(10) of the S.C/.S.T. Act against the present petitioner. The counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has further submitted that in a number of cases, the Apex Court has held that at the stage of framing charge, the accused is not allowed to file any document in support of his defence, which can be looked into only at the stage of trial. In this context, he has cited a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2009 CRI.L.J. 822 in the case of Rukmini Narvekar Versus Vijaya Satardekar. He has further submitted that it is well settled that at the stage of framing the charge, it is not expected to go into the probative value of the materials on record, and the court could come to the conclusion that the accused have committed offence and the court can frame the charge and proceed. In support of his contention he has cited a decision in the case of Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia Vr Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, reported in 2000 (1) SCC 138 , and another in the case of State of Maharashtra Vr. Som Nath Thapa, reported in 1996 (4) SCC 659 . 5. No doubt, the complaint case has been lodged after some delay but the said delay is not as such that the whole trial can vitiate on that very point. From the records of the case, I find that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the revision application is dismissed.