Jharkhand High Court
Md.Lukman Khan @ Md.Lukman & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2012
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1155 of 2010
1. Md. Lukman Khan @ Md. Lukman
2. Mohsin Ali @ Mohin Ali
3. Adalat Ansari ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Advocate
For the State : A. P.P.
-----
04 / 20.4.2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.8.2010 passed by Sri S.N. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No.1233 of 2000, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for discharge, was rejected by the Court below, stating that the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners after investigation of the case. The Court below has also taken note of the fact that one of the co-accused had been discharged by this Court.
3. It appears that the petitioners have been made accused in Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No.107 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No.1233 of 2000 for the offence under Section 415/420/467/468/471/120(B) of the I.P.C., as three trucks loaded with coal were apprehended by the police. The petitioners are the owners of the two trucks and driver of one truck. It also appears that the documents relating the coal were produced by the drivers of three trucks from which it transpired that the said coal were loaded at Eastern Coalfields Limited, Mugma Area Colliery and were being transported to M/s Suresh Glass Works at Hathras, situated in the State of Utter Pradesh. The police official, who apprehended the trucks had some suspicion and he got the matter verified from the Superintendent of Police, Hathras, who informed that there was no such firm namely Suresh Glass Works at Hathras. Accordingly, the case was instituted and the petitioners were made accused along with other persons and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons, including the petitioners. It also appears that after taking cognizance, the case -2- was transferred to the Court of Sri S.N. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for trial, where the petitioner filed the application for discharge, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.8.2010 passed in G.R. Case No.1233 of 2000.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the same case, the owner of the said M/s Suresh Glass Works, Hathras, namely, Mukesh Chandra Bansal was also made accused. Said Mukesh Chandra Bansal had also filed an application for discharge in the Court below which was rejected by the Court below by order dated 8.9.2009, against which he filed Criminal Revision No.1029 of 2009 in this Court. In the said case this Court took note of the fact that there was no longer regulatory provision with respect to coal and this Court also considered the fact that M/s Suresh Glass Works Hathras had the linkage with Eastern Coalfields Ltd., but the said firm was closed for some time and thereafter it was revived and accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.9.2009 passed in G.R. No.1233 of 2000 was set-aside and the petitioner Mukesh Chandra Bansal was discharged from the criminal liability, by order dated 15.4.2010 passed in Cr. Revision No.1029 of 2009. The said order of this Court has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to this application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners have been made accused in this case only due to the fact that the I.O. of the case had found that there was no existence of M/s Suresh Glass Works at Hathras, but the proprietor of the said Suresh Glass Works at Hathras produced the documents to show that the said firm was existing, which was only closed for some time and the same was revived and had business concerns with Eastern Coalfields Ltd., and accordingly the proprietor of the said Suresh Glass Works, hathras, was discharged. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that these petitioners are also entitled to be discharged and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, as also the impugned order, are fit to be quashed. -3-
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that on the basis of the material collected against the petitioners during investigation, chargesheet was filed against the petitioners and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
7. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the only material for making the petitioners accused in this case was the fact that there was no existence of M/s Suresh Glass Works at Hathras, but the fact remains that the existence of M/s Suresh Glass Works at Hathras was found and the co-accused, who is the owner of the said M/s Suresh Glass Works at Hathras, had been discharged by this Court, finding that the said firm was having business concerns with Eastern Coalfields Limited. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are also entitled to be discharged and the criminal proceeding against the petitioners cannot be allowed to be continued, particularly in view of the fact that the other co- accused in the similar circumstances, has been discharged by this Court.
8. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 19.8.2010 passed by Sri S.N. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in G.R. No.1233 of 2000, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in Govindpur (Barwadda) P. S. Case No.107 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No.1233 of 2000 are, hereby, quashed. This application is accordingly, allowed.
(H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar