Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1995 (JHR)

Aditya Jajodia v. State of Jharkhand

2019-12-10

ANANDA SEN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 19.02.2019, passed in G.R. No. 199 of 2011(S), cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 414, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and this cognizance has been taken twice as on the very first occasion, i.e. 07.06.2011, cognizance was already taken by the Court for the same offence. He further submits that on the basis of the supplementary charge sheet the petitioner has been summoned but, there are no materials in the impugned order to suggest as to why the summons has been issued and what are the materials against the petitioner to issue summons. 3. Learned A.P.P. submits that though the cognizance has been taken twice but this order dated 19.02.2019 should be read as summoning order and there is no illegality in it. 4. From the records, I find that on 07.06.2011 the Court had already taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 414, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The investigation was kept pending in respect of some of the accused persons. Thereafter supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 31.01.2019 and on the basis of the same the Court again took cognizance for the same offence vide order dated 19.02.2019. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Dharam Pal & Others-versus-State of Haryana & Another, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 306 ” has held that cognizance of the offence can be taken only once. Thus, the order dated 19.02.2019, whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Court in spite of the fact that the same was already taken on 07.06.2011, is hereby quashed. 6. So far as summoning order is concerned, I find that there is no material on the record to suggest as to why summons has been issued. This Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2744 of 2013, while dealing with the issue of issuing summons and taking cognizance, has held that there should be opinion of the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds to proceed. This Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2744 of 2013, while dealing with the issue of issuing summons and taking cognizance, has held that there should be opinion of the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds to proceed. This Court has also held that sufficient grounds should be reflected in the order itself to suggest that there was application of mind. 7. In this case, I find that not satisfaction is recorded in the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.02.2019, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below for deciding afresh in accordance with law. 8. This application stands allowed.