Partly allowed

Pramila Devi and Anr. v. State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Oct 2014Cr.Rev./268/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Application was preferred against an order rejecting a discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The High Court set aside the impugned order as it was cryptic and failed to discuss materials on record to establish a prima facie case, remanding the matter for a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 04.02.2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court to pass a speaking order after discussing the materials on record and hearing arguments.

Pramila Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision. No. 268 of 2013

¶2

Pramila Devi 2. Ram Prasad Agrawal .… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶4

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶5

---------

¶6

06/Dated: 7th October, 2014

¶7

This Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 4.02.2013 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Palamau in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No.76 of 2005, corresponding to G.R No.1555 of 2005 registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder the petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C, for discharge, preferred on behalf of the petitioners has been rejected.

¶8

Brief facts of the case is that the truck bearing No.BHB6401 was intercepted and 300 bags of fertilizer were seized for which the papers were issued by the M/S Gaurav Agency at Daltonganj, which were found to be forged in course of investigation and on the basis of which Hariharganj P.S. Case No.76 of 2005 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under the aforesaid sections of the I.PC.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.1, Pramila Devi is the owner of the said fertilizer shop and the petitioner No.2, Ram Prasad Agrawal is the husband of the petitioner No.1; that the trial court rejected the application filed under Sections 239 of the Cr.P.C for discharge without appreciating the facts that the petitioner No.1 is the owner and she has not challenged the genunity of the papers produced by the

¶10

02 -

¶11

driver of the truck. It has further been submitted that the informant, who happens to be a Sub-Inspector, is not a competent authority to lodge a case with respect to the fertilizer and the evasion of commercial tax which is governed by the Essential Commodities Act. It has also been submitted that the trial court has not discussed the materials available on record to show that a prima facie case against the petitioners and the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State – A.P.P has opposed the prayer and submitted that the cognizance was taken on the basis of the materials available in the case diary and as per the impugned order, the trial court has perused the case diary and found sufficient materials on record to frame the charge against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that for better appreciation the case diary may be called for.

¶13

On perusal of the impugned order dated 04.02.2013 passed in connection with Hariharganj P.S Case No.76 of 2005 corresponding to G.R Case No.1555 of 2005, it appears that the trial court has not discussed the materials available in the case diary and passed a cryptic order stating therein that “I found that there is sufficient materials on record to frame charge against the accused persons …................ “

¶14

It is a settled principle of law that for framing of charge, the evidence has not to be sifted or weighed or a roving enquiry is not be made to find out whether the materials are sufficient for conviction rather the court should satisfy itself by discussing the materials available to consider that a prima facie case is made out as per the materials available on record for proceeding against the accused. In the instant case as per the impugned order the trial court has not discussed the material available on record to show that it was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for framing the charge.

¶15

Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 04.02.2013, passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Palamau is, hereby, set aside and the matter is remanded to

¶16

03 -

¶17

the trial court to pass a speaking order by discussing the materials on record gathered by the police and after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsels. 7. With the said direction and observation, the Criminal Revision Application is, hereby, disposed of.

¶18

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)

¶19

Chandan/

Pramila Devi and Anr. v. State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Devi and Anr. v. State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Kumar Verma Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Hemant Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Surendra Mahto Alias Gorka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sukhdeo Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Hema Dom Alias Hema Kalindi Vs State Of Jharkhand

Chhotu Mandal Alias Chhote Lal Mandal Vs State Of Jharkhand