Jharkhand High Court
Nirmal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 28 March, 2016
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 737 of 2008
---
Nirmal Kumar Sinha, son of Naresh Prasad Sinha, resident of village -
Sayal Mines Quarter, PO: Bhurkunda, PS: Patratu, District - Ramgarh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Virendra Kumar Singh, son of Nagdeo Singh, resident of River Side,
Budh Bazar, PS: Patratu, (Bhurkunda), District - Ramgarh
... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P.
---
07/28.03.2016In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) PS Case No. 169 of 2006 including the order dated 11.09.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant runs a dumper on hire for Ajay Transport Company along with other dumper owners. The diesel to the dumpers is supplied by Ajay Transport Company from its consumer diesel pump. It has been alleged that due to mixing of Kerosene Oil in the diesel various mechanical defects occurred in the vehicles. On 11.07.2006, the informant as well as the other dumper owners saw one Tata 2007 vehicle arrive with empty drums and about 09:30 P.M. the vehicle came with loaded drums and started draining oil into the pump. The informant suspected the container of carrying Kerosene Oil and on being questioned the driver had disclosed that on the instruction of Ajay Jain, he drained out the oil into the pump. It was suspected that the accused persons in connivance with each other have mixed Kerosene Oil into diesel and have misappropriated a huge amount of money.
3. On the basis of aforesaid allegations Patratu (Bhurkunda) PS Case No. 169 of 2006 was instituted.
4. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and, thereafter, vide order dated 11.09.2006 the -2- learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh was pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
5. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., for the State.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is merely a Supervisor of Ajay Transport Company and the allegations with respect to mixing of Kerosene Oil into diesel are apparently false and fabricated. It has been submitted that the sample of the oil was taken and from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory no adulteration was detected and, therefore, since the very basis of implicating the petitioner has been falsified by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory the entire proceedings deserves to be quashed.
7. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has contended that in course of investigation several witnesses have supported the occurrence. It has further been submitted that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not suggest with certainty that the diesel was unadulterated. It has been submitted that since in course of investigation the police having found the involvement of the petitioner leading to submission of charge-sheet no interference is warranted in the criminal proceedings.
8. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner case diary was called for and it has been perused. It appears that apart from the informant some of the witnesses have supported the occurrence. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory clearly demonstrates that the Forensic Science Laboratory is not equipped with sophisticated technology and, therefore, the tests were inconclusive. Although as per the available techniques no adulteration was found but in absence of higher level of technology which could finally conclude whether the petroleum product was adulterated or not, at the present moment it cannot be said with certainty that the petroleum product was unadulterated and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is negated. Even otherwise this -3- Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner.
9. This Court being prima facie satisfied of existence of an offence as alleged against the petitioner the same would not warrant any interference in the criminal proceedings and, accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-