Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 626 (JHR)

Ashish Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-11

D.K.SINHA

body2011
Order The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the order dated 11 .5.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi by which charge against the petitioner was framed for the alleged offence under Sections 17(i) and 17(ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 136 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 2871 of 2009. 2. The petitioner had earlier preferred W.P.(Cr.) No. 397 of 2009* challenging the order by which cognizance of the offence was taken. This Court by order dated 20.11.2009 quashed the part of the order by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 13(ii) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act and maintained the cognizance of the offence under Sections 17(i) and 17(ii) of the C.L.A. Act and modified the impugned order of C.J.M. The petitioner then filed regular bail before this Court in SA No. 9125 of 2009 which was disposed of releasing the petitioner on bail on 19.5.2010. After rejection of the discharge petition the petitioner again preferred a Criminal Revision No. 150 of 2010 before this Court to which the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the said Cr. Revision by order of this Court on 22.3.2010, however, with the liberty to raise all the points at the appropriate stage. Accordingly, points for his discharge were raised and the learned SDJM, Ranchi rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge and framed the charge against him under Sections 17(i) and 17(ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act which is being challenged by invoking the Inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The prosecution story in short was that the informant Officer-in-charge of Chutia Police station on receiving information from the senior police officers that consignment of the extremists from Delhi had arrived at the AIR INDIA Cargo office situated at Pradhan Tower, the informant with the police party visited the Cargo office of AIR INDIA on 13.7.2009 and intercepted two persons including the petitioner Ashish Sharma who had already received two cartoons of consignment and on being asked they replied that under instruction of one Naresh Sharma of Shikha Construction Private Ltd. Company they had come to receive the consignment and that the accused Robin Samad was the employee of said Naresh Sharma. Both petitioner and the co-accused admitted having received two cartoons to be carried to the house of Naresh Sharma at Ashok Nagar, Ranchi. The cartoons were seized in presence of witnesses and on opening of the cartoons several incriminating articles related to telecommunication system were found. Amongst the incriminating articles were Walkie-Talkie, Trangisters of different models Micro Cassette recorder, Compact Antinna and several other-articles to which seizure list was prepared. Both the accused were arrested and brought to the police station. Naresh Sharma was arrested from Daltonganj pursuant to the confessional statement of the petitioner. The accused Naresh Sharma also confessed his guilt and admitted having called for consignments for its delivery to the M.C.C. ultras under the instruction of the Members of the Central Committee CPI (Maoist) prasantjee and Sanjeevjee to be utilized by the Guerilla Squad. The consignment was sent by one Praveen Kumar of Delhi and that a bullet proof jacket was recovered from the house of Naresh Kumar Sharma which was later on released to him. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar explained for the petitioner that there was no material except his confessional statement •and that of the co-accused Robin Samod against the petitioner recorded by the police. Such confessions of the accused did not lead to recovery of incriminating, objectionable or banned article from their possession or else so' as to prima facie establish the nexus of the petitioner with the M.C.C. ultras. He was a man of clean antecedent and never found indulged in any kind of criminal activity nor concerned with the activities of Maoist and therefore there was no material at all in the case diary for framing of charge against the petitioner for the alleged oflenee under Sections 17(i) and 17(ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Neither the basic ingredients of constituting the alleged offence could be pointed out nor required sanction was accorded under the law for filing the charge-sheet against this petitioner and therefore, charge framed on the basis of illegal charge-sheet was liable to be quashed. Finally Mr. Neither the basic ingredients of constituting the alleged offence could be pointed out nor required sanction was accorded under the law for filing the charge-sheet against this petitioner and therefore, charge framed on the basis of illegal charge-sheet was liable to be quashed. Finally Mr. Kumar submitted that bullet proof jacket, which was recovered from Naresh Kumar, was returned to him by order of this court, meaning thereby, that Naresh Kumar Sharma was the bona fide owner of the seized article like bullet proof jacket and therefore, the entire allegation against this petitioner and others was based upon conjecture and surmises that consignment of telecommunication system were to be delivered to the M.C.C. people by them without pointing out cogent evidence. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State contended that sanction has already been accorded by the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 4148 dated 9.10.2010 for prosecution of the petitioner and co-accused having been satisfied with the prima facie materials put up before him for consideration. Counter affidavit further contended that on the basis of the confessional statement of Naresh Kumar Sharma, the dispatcher of consignment namely Praveen Sharma was also arrested and he confessed that he supplied the goods to Naresh Sharma as also, Sanjeev Jee and Prashanat Jee the members of the Central Committee of M.C.C. and that the articles seized from them were highly incriminating which could have been useful to strengthen the communication system of the MCC ultras. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the State O.P. I find that Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was justified in framing of charge against the petitioner and others for the alleged offence under Sections 17(i) and 17(ii) of the CLA Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference. I find that Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was justified in framing of charge for the prima facie alleged offence under Sections 17(i) and 17(ii) of the CLA Act. This petition is devoid of merit, accordingly it is dismissed.