Dismissed

Raj Kumar Jha 'akela' v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Nov 2014CR. MISC./31112/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a Sessions Judge's order dismissing discharge application but not framing charges under the Explosive Substance Act. The Court held that the lack of statutory sanction for prosecution was a valid ground to not frame those specific charges, finding no fault with the trial court's order impugned.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no fault found with the order not framing charges under Explosive Substance Act due to lack of sanction.

Raj Kumar Jha 'akela' Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31112 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Raj Kumar Jha Akela. S/o Sri Naresh Jha, Resident of Village- Nehra, Police Station- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Bharat Kr. Choudhary S/O Pashup Nath Choudhary Resident Of VillageNehra, P.S- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga. 3. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Body Guard, Constable No. 600/ Darbhanga, Resident Of Village- Nehra, P.S- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga. 4. Bhagirath Choudharo, S/O Gonou, Resident Of Village- Nehra, P.SManigachhi, District- Darbhanga. 5. Bhola Choudhary, S/O Laxmi Kan @ Kant, Resident Of Village- Nehra, P.S- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga. 6. Madan Mohan Choudhary @ Choudhary, S/O Late Jayanand Choudhary Resident Of Village- Nehra, P.S- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga. 7. Rohini Kumar Choudhary @ Gule, S/o Rochisha Shankar, Resident Of Village- Nehra, P.S- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga. 8. Parshuran Choudhary S/o Late Jagnnth Choudhary Resident Of VillageNehra, P.S- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga. 9. Lalan Kumar Choudhary, S/o Gayanand Choudhary Resident Of VillageNehra, P.S- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Kanhiya Kishore(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 18-11-2014 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.02.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast

¶4

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31112 of 2012 (3) dt.18-11-2014

¶5

¶6

Tract Court-I, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 479 of 2010 arising out of C.R. No. 844 of 1996, whereby the prayer of the accused persons under Section 228 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and no charges have been framed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

¶7

The petitioner is the informant. A case was lodged by him against the accused persons, which on investigation was found to be a case of mistake of fact. There was further investigation by the C.I.D., when also the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that the accusation was because of mistake of fact. Not satisfied, the petitioner, preferred a complaint before the Court. Learned Magistrate after examining the petitioner and two witnesses offered on his behalf, took cognizance, the opposite party nos. 2 to 9 under Sections, 147, 148, 149, 380, 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the explosive Substance Act.

¶8

An application was preferred on behalf of opposite parties for their discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. as also under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., alternatively for not framing the charges under the provisions of the Explosive Substance Act.

¶9

The learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.02.2012 rejected the application of the opposite parties with respect to the prayer made under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge. However, the submission on behalf of the opposite parties that no charges ought to have been framed

¶10

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31112 of 2012 (3) dt.18-11-2014

¶11

¶12

under the Explosive Substance Act was allowed by the learned Court below.

¶13

Perused the order impugned.

¶14

It appears that the learned trial court allowed such a prayer of the opposite parties on the ground that despite many witnesses having been named in the complaint petition, only two witnesses were examined and that there was no sanction for prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The ground of all the witnesses of the complaint not having been examined, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is not necessary for the Court to examine all the witnesses named in the complaint petition.

¶15

Absence of sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Substance Act was on a good and sustainable ground for passing the order impugned.

¶16

This Court, finds no fault with the net impact of the order which is under challenge.

¶17

The petition is dismissed.

¶18

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶19

P.K./-

¶20

U T

Raj Kumar Jha 'akela' v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Jha 'akela' v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashim Kumar Nag Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Bhagwan Singh @ Shri Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Krishna Dutt Jha and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Arun Paswan and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Bindeshwar Rai and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Sri Satyabrata Dey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.