Dismissed

Bishwanath Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2023Cr.Rev./158/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order adding the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The court upheld the lower court's decision based on witness evidence and noted the petitioner was an absconder.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bishwanath Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2021

¶2

….

¶3

Bishwanath Nayak …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Tapan Kumar Patnayak ……Opp. Parties

¶7

-----

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶9

-----

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate

¶11

Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Alam, A. P. P.

¶12

08/21.03.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶13

2. The Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.01.2019 passed in connection with Berma Mines P. S. Case No. 44 of 2016 corresponding to G. R. No. 1730 of 2016 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur whereby the learned Court below has allowed the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. and office is directed to issue summon to the petitioner as an additional accused and also directed to separate the record of the additional accused (petitioner) from original record.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint petition was filed as it was alleged that money was not paid by the petitioner and two other accused persons and the police has submitted final form against him, hence the learned Court below has committed wrong by allowing the petition under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. It is submitted that evidence of P.W.-1, Mantu Patnaik, P.W.-3, Sunil Kumar Roy, P.W.-5, Kanak Lata Patnaik and P.W.-7, Ranjeet Kumar Pardiyar are not reliable and

¶15

-2-

¶16

hence, the impugned order may be set aside.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court. It is submitted that all the witnesses have taken the name of the petitioner for receiving the amount. It is submitted that P.W.-1, Mantu Patnaik, P.W.-5, Kanak Lata Patnaik, P.W.-6, Krishna Patnaik, P.W.-7, Ranjeet Kumar Pardiyar, P.W.-9, Abhay Kumar Mandal and P.W.-10, Tapan Kumar Patnaik have stated for giving money to the petitioner and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below.

¶18

Perused the records of the case and considered the submission of both the sides.

¶19

It appears from the record that earlier the petitioner has filed Cr. M. P. No. 3427 of 2019 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which was withdrawn vide order dated 11.12.2020 with the liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse.

¶20

It appears from the report sent vide Letter No. 1241 dated 17.03.2023 by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra No. 1, learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Singbhum at Jamshedpur that the petitioner is an absconder and bailable warrant has been issued against him.

¶21

It transpires from the impugned order that P.W.-1, Mantu Patnaik, P.W.-5, Kanak Lata Patnaik, P.W.-6, Krishna Patnaik, P.W.-7, Ranjeet Kumar Pardiyar, P.W.-9, Abhay Kumar Mandal and P.W.-10, Tapan Kumar Patnaik have stated in their evidence that they had given money to the petitioner.

¶22

Thus, the learned Court below has passed the impugned order in light of the evidence adduced before him during the trial. 10. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to

¶23

-3-

¶24

interfere with in the impugned order, which has been challenged in this Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2021 and accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2021 is, hereby, dismissed.

¶25

I.A. No. 6536 of 2021 is also dismissed and stands

¶26

disposed of.

¶27

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶28

Kamlesh/

Bishwanath Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bishwanath Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Chandra Mandal Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sarban Sonkar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shahdeo Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nishchay Midha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sailesh Chatterjee Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.