The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the request for revision in a discharge application. The lower court rejected the discharge plea filed by accused petitioners, owners of tankers involved in alleged oil shortage due to fraudulent fabrications. The revision court found no merit in challenging the discharge rejection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 88 of 2014
06/02.5.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2013 passed by Sri P. Shankar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in Mahuatand (Lalpania) P.S. case No. 30 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.499 of 2012, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge, has been rejected by the learned Court below.
The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Mahuatand (Lalpania) P.S. case No. 30 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.499 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 265, 266 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
The F.I.R. was lodged on the allegation that four tankers loaded with Light Diesel Oil (LDO) came to IOC Budge Budge Plant for delivery. In the process of unloading the LDO, the concerned staff noticed some alteration made in the bottom of the chambers of the tankers. On suspicion, the matter was informed to the I.O.C. Authorities and a team was constituted and upon unloading the oil of all the tankers, it was found that the fabrication was made in all the tankers, due to which, there was shortage in the transportation and the delivery of the oil. The petitioners being the owners of the vehicles were also made accused in this case.
It appears that after investigation of the case, the charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 265, 266 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the petitioners filed their application for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., which has been rejected by the Court below, taking into consideration the materials collected against them during the investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they are the owners of the tankers in question. It is further submitted that those tankers are run through transporters
-2-
and the seal which was put at the loading point, was found intact at the delivery point. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the petitioners cannot be held liable and has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for discharge. from perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the fabrications were found to be made in the chambers of the tankers which clearly showed that these fabrications were made for carrying less oil than the capacity of the tanker. The petitioners are owners of the tankers and at this stage, it cannot be said that the fabrications were not made at the instance of the petitioners, rather it was made by the transporter. During investigation, the materials have been found against the petitioners also and accordingly, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction, dismissing the application for discharge filed by the petitioners.
There is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
BS/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. warrants interference in revision.
Whether the allegations of fabrication in the tankers could implicate the petitioners as owners of the vehicles at this stage.
Whether any illegality or irregularity exists in the discharge application rejection warranting revisional revision.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Daljit Singh
Malati Sinha
Jughar Singh
Harbansh Singh
The State of Jharkhand
H. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
