Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 690 (JHR)

Ishwar Chand Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand

2015-06-16

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
ORDER In the present revision application, the two petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case. No. 2121 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for their discharge, has been rejected. 2. The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case no. 166 of 2012 instituted under Section 414 of the I.P.C. on the allegation that on a confidential information, when the S.I. of the above Police Station conducted search of the godwon of Annapura Enterprises of the two petitioners, found illegal scrap materials and seized those articles and a seizure list was also prepared. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the cognizance was taken. Whereafter, a petition under Section 239 of the Code was filed for the discharge of the petitioners, but the same was rejected by the court below holding that there is sufficient evidence in the case diary and ample materials on record to frame charge against the petitioners. 3. Mr. Ananda Sen, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seriously contended that during pendency of the case in the court below, a petition for release of the seized material in favour of the petitioners was filed whereafter a report was called from the Investigating Officer and finding the report in favour of the petitioners, the seized materials were released and that the petitioners were bonfaide purchasers of those seized materials and even they had paid different taxes and their firm Annapurna Enterprises is a registered firm, which carries the business of scrap materials. It was further submitted that the release of the seized materials in favour of the petitioners clearly stipulates that no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 414 of I.P.C. and that the Court below while rejecting the petition for discharge has failed to consider the report of the I.O., which is an unimpeachable document and in catena of decisions, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the unimpeachable documents if filed at the instance of the accused can also be looked into. 4. 4. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel representing the State submitted that the said report of the Investigating Officer cannot be termed as unimpeachable document and there is ample material on record to show the involvement of the petitioners in the present case. 5. I find from the order impugned that while deciding the petition for discharge, the court below has not considered the report of the Investigating Officer, which was submitted in response to the order of the court rather relied upon different paragraphs of the case diary and held that the genuineness of the documents given by the petitioners can only be ascertained during course of trial. 6. It is true that normally, the court at the stage of framing of charge or considering the petition filed for discharge on behalf of the accused has not to look into any document of defence but, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that the object of providing such an opportunity to produce unimpeachable document is to enable the court to look into those documents to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the case ends there, it gains a lot of time of the Court and saves such human efforts and costs. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the court shut it out saying that such documents need to be produced during trial proceedings only. So from the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, only the unimpeachable document/evidence produced by the defence can be looked into at this stage. 7. In the result, the impugned order cannot sustain and, accordingly, it is set aside with direction to the court concerned to pass an appropriate order afresh after considering the materials available on record. Obviously, the court below while considering those documents will keep in mind that the considerations for release of seized materials as provided under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code are different as in view of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, seized materials cannot be kept in police stations. This is not a case of mere release of material. 8. This revision application is, thus, allowed.