Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 380 (JHR)

Bhuneshwar Bediya v. State of Jharkhand

2017-02-23

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : This application is directed against the judgment dated 27.03.2001 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 1999 whereby and whereunder judgment and order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh on 23.12.1998 in connection with G.R. No. 144 of 1995 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Rule 40(1) of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified by revising the same from 6 months S.I. to 3 months S.I. 2. It has been stated by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the P.W. 3 is alleged to have inspected the place of occurrence and has submitted a report before the District Mining Officer – P.W. 3 who has subsequently filed the complaint leading to prosecution of the petitioners. Learned senior counsel submits that the inspection report had never accompanied the complaint although the inspection was made on 07.12.1994, but the inspection report was produced at the time of examination of C.W. 1 – Lala Narendra Kishore on 27.06.1996. He further submitted that the inspection report is itself concocted document and which is prepared subsequently and no reliance can be placed on it. Furthering his argument he has submitted that the inspection report also does not contain the plot no. or the area where the petitioners was manufacturing bricks without any licence as required under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It has been stated that in absence of specifying place of occurrence, judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside. 3. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 4. It appears that the complaint was lodged by the District Mining Officer – C.W. 3 on 17.05.1995 that the petitioners were manufacturing bricks without obtaining any licence from the District Mines Officer. It is alleged that a report was submitted by the Mines Inspector about the violation of the rules by the petitioners on 07.12.1994 and in fact a notice has also been sent to the petitioners for payment of fine of Rs. 25,580/-, but since the petitioners did not choose to make the payment, the complaint case was instituted. Cognizance was taken under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 read with Rule 41 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and the trial proceeded. 25,580/-, but since the petitioners did not choose to make the payment, the complaint case was instituted. Cognizance was taken under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 read with Rule 41 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and the trial proceeded. The prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts led to conviction of petitioner under Section 40(1) of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the petitioners were sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1999 was dismissed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh on 27.03.2001 by affirming the judgment of conviction and reducing the period of sentence to 3 months S.I. 5. In course of trial, 3 witnesses have been examined. C.W. 1 – Lala Narendra Kishore was the Mines Inspector who is alleged to have inspected the place of occurrence and having found that the petitioners were manufacturing bricks without obtaining any licence from the District Mines Office, he submitted the report to the District Mines Officer who has subsequently filed the report. C.W. 2 – Dhaneshwar Mahto is the Chainman cum Peon, District Mines Office and C.W. 3 – Radha Raman is District Mines Officer and the complainant of the present case. 6. It appears that the entire prosecution case hinges upon the report submitted by the C.W. 1 which was marked as exhibit 1, although with objection from the side of defence. It appears that the inspection was made on 07.12.1994 and the report was prepared on 08.12.1994. The complaint case based on the said report was instituted on 17.04.1995. Till 27.06.1996, the report was never brought forward by the prosecution, however in course of evidence of C.W. 1, the report was exhibited on 27.06.1996, though with objection from the side of the defence and marked as exhibit 1. When the complaint petition itself was filed based on the inspection report of C.W. 1, it would have been prudent for the prosecution to file the prosecution report along with the complaint petition. The subsequent bringing of the said document on the record by the prosecution thus caused a doubt over the same as a perusal of the same would also reveal that C.W.1 is the only signatory of the said report. The subsequent bringing of the said document on the record by the prosecution thus caused a doubt over the same as a perusal of the same would also reveal that C.W.1 is the only signatory of the said report. It further appears that the place of occurrence has not been discussed as neither the plot number nor the area in which the bricks were being manufactured were mentioned in the said inspection report. Even it is assumed that the inspection report was prepared on 08.12.1994, in such circumstances, the said report does not inspire any confidence with respect to the genuineness of the report as the same is shorn of any details which would specify the place where the petitioner was allegedly manufacturing bricks. Neither the learned trial court nor the learned appellate court has appreciated the exhibit in its proper perspective and in such circumstances therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 7. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the impugned orders passed on 27.03.2001 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 1999 and the order dated 23.12.1998 by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 144 of 1995 are set aside. 8. The petitioners are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond.