Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 82 (JHR)

Sumitro Ghosh @ Saumitro Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand

2020-01-15

ANANDA SEN

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.7.2019 by which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 9(B) of the Explosive Act, 1884 in connection with Pakur (Malpahari) P.S. Case No. 48 of 2019 (G.R. No. 284/2019). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is cryptic and non-speaking and it does not suggest application of mind. He further submits that requirement of Section 204 Cr.P.C. has not been dealt with in the order impugned. He also submit that the court should have sufficiently satisfied itself before taking cognizance against the accused. He also submits that what are the materials for taking cognizance for the offence as alleged and thereafter issuing summons against the petitioners, has not been reflected in the order impugned, which makes the impugned order defective. 4. Learned A.P.P opposes the prayer of the petitioner but after going through the order impugned, he cannot justify the order impugned. 5. After going through the record and the order impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 9(B) of the Explosive Act, 1884. What are the materials against the petitioners which warrants proceeding against them has not been mentioned in the order impugned. In most mechanical way, the impugned order has been been passed. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors, reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 (Jhr.) has passed the detailed order discussing the provisions and requirement of order under Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 12.7.2019 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. 8. The learned court below is directed to pass order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.