Allowed

Jayant Kumar Akhouri And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2016Cr.Rev./649/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed criminal revision setting aside an order rejecting a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for being cryptic, unreasoned, and not based on materials on record. Matter remanded for fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh was set aside. Matter remanded to pass a fresh order after considering materials on record.

Jayant Kumar Akhouri And Anr. Vs The State Of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 649 of 2016

¶2

1.Jayant Kumar Akhouri @ Akhouri Jayant Narayan Sinha son of Jagdish Akhouri

¶3

2.Rashmi Akhouri wife of Jayant Akhouri both are resident of Uttari Shivpuri, PO Shivpuri, PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh … …

¶4

… … Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.Anjula Devi wife of Sri Sudhir Ranjan Prasad Akhouri resident of Okni (Maya Kunj) PO GPO, PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh … …

¶8

… … Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

--For the Petitioners : M/s. K. P. Deo & Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

¶11

4/05.09.2016 Heard Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

This application is directed against the order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XIV, Hazaribagh in S. T. No. 621 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶13

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 30.04.2016 is a cryptic order which contains no reason or is not based on the materials available on record. It has been submitted that even after remand, the impugned order dated 30.04.2016 is virtually a replica of earlier order dated 01.05.2014 which was set aside by this court.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer made.

¶15

It appears that earlier the petitioner has moved a Criminal Revision bearing no. 575 of 2014 challenging the order dated 01.05.2014 passed by the learned trial court which had rejected the discharge application preferred by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.10.2015 passed in Cr. Revision No. 575 of 2014 reads thus:

¶16

“The impugned order would have been sustainable, if the material evidence had been sifted or weighed at least for the limited purpose for recording of

¶17

-2-

¶18

satisfaction by the Additional Sessions Judge, VI that there was evidence on record to reasonably connect the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections 304(B) and 306. From the impugned order it is abundantly clear that no reasons have been assigned save and except the observation of learned Additional Sessions Judge, VI that “even if the charges were framed by a predecessor judge, the successor judge is very much empowered under Sections 216 Cr.P.C. to alter or add charges at any stage” consequent thereto in a mechanical manner the order has been passed observing that “sufficient ground for presuming that the accused persons have committed offence punishable under Section 302/34 in-alternate 304(B) in alternate 306 of the IPC”.

¶19

It appears that after remand the application of the petitioner was considered and the order was passed on 30.04.2016 rejecting the said application. The impugned order dated 30.04.2016 does not contain any reason with respect to rejecting the discharge application preferred by the petitioner. The materials available on record have not been considered and it has merely been stated that considering the materials available on judicial record and case diary and the observation of this court in Cr. Revision No. 575 of 2014, the discharge application has been rejected.

¶20

In absence of consideration of materials available on record, the impugned order dated 30.04.2016 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge XIV, Hazaribagh, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order and after hearing the parties

¶21

and “on consideration of the materials available on record” .

¶22

Accordingly, this application is allowed.

¶23

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶24

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Jayant Kumar Akhouri And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayant Kumar Akhouri And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramu Hansda and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Sarkar Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Santosh Minj Alias Santosh Minj Oroan Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Dhruv Shukla Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nandu Pandit And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sakir Ansari Alias Tiska Alias Md Sakir Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand