Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 793 (JHR)

Surendra Kumar Agarwalla v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-13

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
ORDER By this Court - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for setting-aside the order dated 30.9.2002 passed by Sri D.K. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in G.R. Case No.1261 of 2001 whereby, the application filed by on behalf of the petitioner for discharge was dismissed by the learned Court below. 3. Petitioner has been made accused in Dhanbad (Seraidhella) P.S. Case No.180 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. No.1261 of 2001 on the allegation that about 100 tons of coal were recovered from the factory premises of the petitioner, about which no document was produced by the petitioner. 4. It appears that the petitioner was arrested in the evening of 30.3.2001 and the documents with respect to the coal were produced in the Court below in the morning of 31.3.2001. It also appears from the impugned order that the defence of the petitioner was that the petitioner had produced the documents of the coal before the police, but the police refused to accept them and the petitioner was arrested. The documents relating to the coal submitted in the Court of C.J.M., Dhanbad on 31.3.2001 at 10.00 A.M., were sent for verification before the police and the police after verification found the documents to be genuine. However, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 414 of the IPC, for which cognizance was also taken against the petitioner. 5. It appears that the petitioner moved this Court for release of the coal in his favour and his prayer was allowed. It also appears that the petitioner had also filed Cr.M.P. No. 4422 of 2001 for quashing the proceedings against the him, but this Court by order dated 4.3.2002 directed the petitioner to raise all the points before the Court below, directing the Court below to consider those points and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It also appears that the petitioner had also filed Cr.M.P. No. 4422 of 2001 for quashing the proceedings against the him, but this Court by order dated 4.3.2002 directed the petitioner to raise all the points before the Court below, directing the Court below to consider those points and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C for discharge, which was disposed of by the Court below by order dated 30.9.2001 taking into consideration the facts that though the documents submitted by the petitioner were found to be genuine upon verification by the police and there was no theft report with respect to the coal seized from the factory premises of the petitioner, but the I.O. had expressed the view that it seemed that the papers with respect to the coal were manufactured later on and accordingly, the application for discharge was rejected by the Court below. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was apprehended in connection with this case in the evening of 30.3.2001 as is apparent from the FIR itself and the impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner had deposited the documents relating to the coal through his advocate on 31.3.2001 itself at 10.00 A.M., which were sent for verification before the police and accordingly, there was no occasion or opportunity to the petitioner to get the documents manufactured. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is fit case in which the petitioner ought to have been discharged by the Court below. 7. Learned APP opposed the prayer. 8. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that from the FIR itself, it is apparent that 100 tons of coal were recovered from the factory premises of the petitioner and in the FIR it finds mentioned that the petitioner claimed that he used to purchase the coal from the Chasnala Colliery. It is also apparent from the impugned order that there was no material in the case diary to show that the coal were stolen one and the Court below appears to have dismissed the application for discharge only on the ground that the I.O. expressed his view that the documents appears to be manufactured later on. It is also apparent from the impugned order that there was no material in the case diary to show that the coal were stolen one and the Court below appears to have dismissed the application for discharge only on the ground that the I.O. expressed his view that the documents appears to be manufactured later on. It is apparent that the petitioner had no occasion at all for manufacturing the documents, as the petitioner was apprehended on 30.3.2001 in the evening and the documents with respect to coal were produced in the Court below in the morning of 31.3.2001. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I find that the impugned order rejecting the prayer for discharge of the petitioner has been passed in an absolutely mechanical manner and without any application of judicial mind and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.9.2002 passed by Sri D.K. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No.1261 of 2001, is hereby, set-aside and the Court below is directed to pass afresh order in accordance with law, taking into consideration the facts that the documents procured by the petitioner with respect to the coal, were found to be genuine, the petitioner had no occasion at all for manufacturing the documents as the petitioner was apprehended on 30.3.2001 in the evening and the documents with respect to coal were produced in the Court below in the morning of 31.3.2001 and there was no theft report with respect to the coal nor there was any material before the Court to show that the coal were stolen one, and without being swayed by the opinion of the I.O. that the documents seemed to be manufactured later on. With these directions, this application is allowed. Application allowed.