Allowed

Munna Bhagat and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./940/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand set aside an order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge in criminal revision proceedings because the accused, who were not original parties to the revision, were not given an opportunity of being heard, violating Section 401(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 26.02.2014 in Cr. Revision No. 13 of 2013 set aside; Principal Sessions Judge directed to give notice to accused and pass fresh order after hearing them.

Munna Bhagat and Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 940 of 2014

¶3

With

¶4

I.A. Nos. 7903 of 2019 & 3175 of 2014

¶5

Munna Bhagat

¶6

Subhash Bhagat

¶7

Ramu Bhagat

¶8

Matlu Bhagat @ Matul Bhagat

¶9

Uma Shankar Bhagat

¶10

Sandip Kumar Bhagat 7. Lakhan Prasad Bhagat…..…....... Petitioner(s) Versus

¶11

State of Jharkhand & Anr………… Opp. Party(s)

¶12

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶13

…… For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate Mr. Sahay Gauraw Piyush, Advocate

¶14

3/23.01.2020 This case has been listed today on the interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 7903 of 2019, praying therein to extend the period of interim order, which was granted in favour of these petitioners by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2014, which stood deemed to be vacated in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another-versus- Central Bureau of investigation, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299 ”.

¶15

Now, both the parties are ready to argue the main application today on merit.

¶16

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶17

A very short point is involved in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 28.06.2013, passed in P.C.R. Case No. 263 of 2011 by the A.C.J.M., Pakur, by which cognizance of the offence was only taken under the provision of Indian Penal Code and not under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was challenged by the complainant before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2013. In the said revision application the accused were not even made a party and without giving an opportunity of being heard, the order was passed in the revision application. He further submits that the accused should have been made a party as right had already accrued to the accused by virtue of the order dated 28.06.2013, passed by the A.C.J.M., Pakur in P.C. R. Case No. 263 of 2011. He further submits that there is gross violation of the principle of natural justice by the Sessions

¶19

-2-

¶20

Judge, Pakur.

¶21

Counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 submits that from the order, it is clear that the accused were not made party in the revision application.

¶22

After hearing the parties and on going through the impugned order, I find that in Cr. Revision No. 13 of 2013, the Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur, vide order dated 26.02.2014, allowed the revision application and directed the A.C.J.M., Pakur to pass a fresh order on the point of cognizance. The petitioners, who are the accused, were not made party in the revision application, thus, they were not even heard in the revisional jurisdiction. The aggrieved party must be heard even when the order taking cognizance is challenged where initially the accused has got no role to play. Any order in a revision application cannot be passed unless the party against whom the order is being passed has been given an opportunity of being heard either personally or through his pleader.

¶23

Section 399 Cr.P.C. is the revisional power of the Sessions Judge. Section 399 (2) Cr.P.C. provides that subsections (2), (3) and (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. shall apply to the proceeding before the Sessions Judge.

¶24

Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. provides that no order under this Section can be passed to the prejudice of a party unless he has been given an opportunity of being heard. Thus, in a revision if an order is supposed to be passed against a party, he must get an opportunity of being heard.

¶25

Since, the aforesaid provision has not been complied with by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur, the order dated 26.02.2014, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Cr. Revision No. 13 of 2013 is bad and is hereby set aside.

¶26

The Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur, is directed to issue notice to the accused persons and pass a fresh order only after hearing the accused persons. The petitioners are also directed to appear before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2013.

¶27

It is expected that the revision application should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

¶28

This criminal miscellaneous petitions stands allowed.

¶29

In view of the final order passed in the main petition, both the interlocutory applications, i.e. I.A. Nos. 3175 of 2014 & 7903 of 2019, have become infructuous.

¶30

Accordingly, it is dismissed as such.

¶31

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶32

Mukund/-cp.3

Munna Bhagat and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Bhagat and Ors. 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

Raju Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anjan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

K D Singh Alias Krishnadeo Singh Alias Krishnadeo Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tapas Khawas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Pathak Vs Maya Pathak

Suresh Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand