Criminal Revision application dismissed as infructuous after the court below rejected the discharge petition and framed charges, with nine witnesses examined.
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed as having become infructuous.
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 Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2018
Ghanshyam Mahto @ Ghanshyam Yadav @ Ghanshyam Yadav
..… Petitioner
Versus
1.Union of India through C.B.I.
2.Meena Devi ….. Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvinder Majumdar, Advocate For the U.O.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I. Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
06/18.07.2023 This Criminal Revision application has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the Court of Sri. S.K. Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cumSpecial Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad by which the discharge petition filed in S.T. No. 333 of 2016 on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Heard Mrs. Jasvinder Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. and Mr. Pankaj Verma, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 and also perused the status report sent by sent by Shri Rajni Kant Pathak, Special Judge C.B.I. (Parent Court) cum Addl. Sessions Judge III, Dhanbad vide Letter No. 35/2023 dated 21.6.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law as the learned court below has not considered the statement of witnesses recorded in the case diary and
-2-
has committed grave illegality by rejecting the discharge petition.
4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. has submitted that though the final report was submitted, yet the learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner by differing from the final form submitted by the C.B.I. It is further submitted that meticulous examination of the statement of witnesses cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges and hence there is no illegality in the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for Informant-O.P. No. 2 has also supported the argument of the learned A.S.G.I.
6. It transpires that the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 was passed by the learned court below by rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Application before this court on 25.01.2018.
7. It appears that the learned court below has taken cognizance on the basis of protest petition filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2-informant. It appears to be a case of custodial death.
8. It further transpires from report sent by Shri Rajni Kant Pathak, Special Judge C.B.I. (Parent Court) cum Addl. Sessions Judge III, Dhanbad vide Letter No. 35/2023 dated 21.6.2023 that charges have been framed against the petitioner and nine witnesses out of 18 chargesheeted witnesses have been examined so far.
-3-
9. Thus, this Criminal Revision has become infructuous and as such this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
Ghanshyam Mahto @ Ghanshyam Yadav @ Ghanshyam Yadav
Union of India through C.B.I.
Meena Devi
Sanjay Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
