Dismissed

Gonu Jha @ Gunnu Jha and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC21 Jun 2017CR. MISC./20082/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Sessions Judge's order dismissing their revision against the Magistrate's order allowing prosecution witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the lower order meritorious and dismissed the quashing petition while expediting the trial.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the order dated 31.01.2014 is dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

Gonu Jha @ Gunnu Jha and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20082 of 2014

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -6 Year- 2009 Thana -HARPUR District- MUNGER

¶4

===========================================================

¶5

Gonu Jha @ Gunnu Jha

¶6

Puttu Jha Both S/o Late Chandra Kant Jha Resident of Village Batsar, Police Station Harpur, District Munger.

¶7

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar

¶10

.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayu Ahmad Khan =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

Date: 21-06-2017

¶12

1 . The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 31.01.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 203 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger. The said revision was filed against the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Munger. The learned Magistrate, as per the order dated 24.07.2013 passed in G.R. No. 395 of 2009 allowed the petition of the prosecution filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

¶13

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Humayu Ahmad Khan, APP for the State.

¶14

The facts, in brief, is that a police case vide Harpur P.S. Case (Tarapur Munger) No. 6 of 2009 was registered against the petitioners on the basis of fardbeyan of informant (Jagda Nand Jha). After

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20082 of 2014 dt.21-06-2017

¶16

2/3

¶17

investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. In course of trial, substance of accusation was explained to the petitioners for the offence under Section 447, 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined three witnesses and his evidence was closed on 29.04.2013. Thereafter, statement of the petitioners was recorded and after examination of the defence witnesses, the case was fixed for argument. The prosecution filed petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on 18.06.2013 for examining the informant and one more witness. The court below finding necessity of recording statement of witnesses for the ends of justice, allowed the prayer of prosecution and directed him to produce the witnesses. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order filed the Cr. Rev. No. 203 of 2013 which after hearing both sides was dismissed at the admission stage on 31.01.2014 by the Sessions Judge, Munger.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Sessions Judge, Munger dismissed the revision without appreciating the facts and going through the order of Magistrate who allowed the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to fill the lacuna of prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to submit reasonable explanation for nonexamination of these two witnesses after four years of commencement of trial. The informant had full knowledge about the stage of trial as his father and younger brother were examined during trial. The

¶19

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20082 of 2014 dt.21-06-2017

¶20

3/3

¶21

learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind and so the same is fit to be quashed.

¶22

The learned APP, on the other hand, opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶23

On perusal of the documents available on records, I find that the S.D.J.M. has given good reason while allowing the petition filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recording evidence of the two witnesses. The witnesses sought to be examined are informant and one Munna Jha who were produced before the court and were ready to depose on behalf of the prosecution without causing any delay.

¶24

Thus, I find that no case for quashing the impugned order is

¶25

made out. The application is devoid of any merit and, is accordingly, dismissed.

¶26

The court below is directed to expedite the trial.

¶27

(Sanjay Kumar, J)

¶28

rohit/-

¶29

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAVDATE	N.A.
UploadingDate	23.06.2017
Transmission Date	23.06.2017

Gonu Jha @ Gunnu Jha and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gonu Jha @ Gunnu Jha and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

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

Jhunnu Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Naraian Sah @ Narayan Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ravindra Yadav Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Manish Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Gopal Kumar Sinha and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Akhilesh Dutta Verma @ Akhilesh Parsad Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar