Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 600 (JHR)

Gansu Ganjhu v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-02-28

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 25.05.2018, passed in G.R. No.4826 of 2015, arising out of Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.140 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi, whereby the petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C, filed by the petitioners, has been rejected. 2. The grievance raised in the present revision application is that by order dated 23.11.2015, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners under Sections 341/ 323/ 307/ 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code . It is submitted that the court below, on perusal of the case diary, applied its judicial mind and found that a prima facie case for the offences under the aforesaid sections is made out and committed the case to the court of Session, since Section 307 I.P.C is triable by the court of Session. It is submitted that the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner - XI, Ranchi, on hearing the application, filed under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C, for discharge of the petitioners recorded its satisfaction that the offence under Sections 307 I.P.C, was not made out however, it held that case for the offence under Sections 4 & 5 of the Prevention of Witch Craft (Daain) Practices Act , (For brevity hereinafter referred to ''the Act'') was made out. Learned counsel has submitted that the court below had applied its judicial mind and did not take cognizance for the offence under Section 4 & 5 of the Act, then the court of Sessions should not have traversed beyond the order of cognizance taken by the committing court on the basis of the materials available on record. The court of Session has erred in framing the charge under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act along with under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 while remitting the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi. It is argued that the impugned order so far as framing of charge under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, is devoid of any materials on record. That the court below by the order dated 25.05.2018 has committed an error in not discharging the petitioners for the aforesaid charge. 3. Learned A.P.P has submitted that no error or illegality has been committed by the trial court. That the court below by the order dated 25.05.2018 has committed an error in not discharging the petitioners for the aforesaid charge. 3. Learned A.P.P has submitted that no error or illegality has been committed by the trial court. The court below has passed the order on the basis of material evidence available in the case diary and the paragraphs as referred to therein. It has recorded its satisfaction that the petition for discharge for the offences under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, is not maintainable. 4. Heard. Perused the impugned order, it is evident that the court below has perused the case diary and recorded its satisfaction that the materials on record prima facie make out the offence under Section 4 & 5 of the Act and accordingly, rejected the application for discharge. The petitioners can always raise the points in their defence during the trial when the evidence is marshalled and laid before the court. 5. Thus, this court does not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned order accordingly, the revision application is, hereby, dismissed.