Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 76 (JHR)

Kripanandan Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-13

PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Office defects are ignored. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 3. It is very shocking that in a criminal case of the year 1998, even after arguing at length, for getting the order of discharge and obtaining the order dated 14.12.2005, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, on 21.12.2011, they moved for the first time an application complaining that they have not been provided with the police papers and thereafter he went on submitting applications before the trial Court, their applications have not been decided by the trial Court and police papers have not been supplied to them. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that police papers have not been supplied to them, If it is so, then the trial Court shall ensure the supply of the police papers to the petitioners accused without any further delay and in case, the prosecution fails to supply the police papers, the matter be reported to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand who may take departmental action against the persons who failed to supply the requisite documents to the accused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the case may be transferred from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad to any other Court. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that initially this case was pending in the Court of Sessions at Bokaro which was transferred by the order of this Court to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad where now the case is pending. 7. It appears that neither the trial Court has taken care to proceed in the criminal case registered in the year 1998 nor the prosecution have shown any interest. 8. Sections 207 and 208, Cr PC clearly provides for supply of a copy of the documents mentioned in those sections, to the accused, However, it is provided in the said section that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document referred to in clause (v) of Section 208, Cr.P.C. is voluminous he shall instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court. 9. Be that as it may, it is the duty of the Magistrate under Sections 207 and 208, Cr.P.C. to comply with the provisions of Sections 207 and 208, Cr.P.C. 10. 9. Be that as it may, it is the duty of the Magistrate under Sections 207 and 208, Cr.P.C. to comply with the provisions of Sections 207 and 208, Cr.P.C. 10. Since it is the case of the writ petitioners that they have not been supplied the police papers and other such documents as required under Sections 207 or 208, Cr.P.C even on demand, it is prima-facie. unbelievable in view of the fact that the petitioners themselves are, by profession Advocates and even argued for their discharge before the Court of Additional Sessions judge and that stage comes much after the compliance of Section 208 Cr.P.C by the Magistrate. But it is appropriate to issue direction to all the Court of the Magistrate, in the entire State of Jharkhand to see compliance of the provisions for supply of copy of the documents or allow inspection, as the case may be, to the accused persons without any delay. In case, the documents are not supplied then the concerned Magistrate may inform the concerned Superintendent of Police. 11. In this case, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously without any further delay and shall decide the criminal case by or before 30th June, 2012. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court forthwith and the petitioners prayer for transfer of the case to other Court, is hereby rejected in view of the delay already caused in the trial and the allegations having no subsistence as levelled against Presiding Officer. Order Accordingly.