Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1569 (JHR)

Shailendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-01

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2004, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Koderma, in Jai Nagar P.S Case No.70 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. 449 of 2001 / T.R. No.446 of 2004, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected by the Court below and the petitioner has been directed to appear in the Court for framing of the charge. 3. It appears from the record that the petitioner was working as Nazir, in Jai Nagar Block Office and there is allegation against the petitioner to have misappropriated the amount of the beneficiaries under the Indra Awash Yojna. The petitioner had admitted before some public representatives in writing that he had kept some money of some persons and he agreed to return the money, and on the basis of the said document, the police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. It appears that after investigation, the police has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 408, 409 and 420 of the IPC. The petitioner thereafter filed his application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order. 4. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below, upon going through the case diary, has found that some of the witnesses have supported the case before the police and the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 408, 409 and 420 of the IPC. Accordingly, the Court below has rejected the application for discharge filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the witnesses have not supported the case during investigation and accordingly, he has submitted that it is a fit case for discharge. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of few witnesses, who have stated that they had heard that the money of the beneficiaries was deducted by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner after investigation, and accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned order, rejecting the application for discharge. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner after investigation, and accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned order, rejecting the application for discharge. 7. In the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that no case for discharge is to be made out at this stage. The fact whether the offence is made out against the petitioner can be established only after the trial in the case. At this stage the petitioner cannot be discharged only on the ground that some of the witnesses have not supported the case before the police, or for the reason that the witnesses are only hearsay witnesses. As such, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.