Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2985 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     Cr. Revision No. 837 of 2019
                                                   .....

1. Rajendra Singh

2. Shivshankar Singh

3. Junus Lakra .... ....Petitioners

-Versus-

               State of Jharkhand                                          ....      .... Opp. Party

              CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                                   .......
              For the Petitioners          : - Mr. Prashant Rahul, Adv.
              For the State                : -Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A. P. P.
                                                   .....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities were good.

........

04/18.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Garu P. S. Case No. 12 of 2017 corresponding to G. R. No. 244 of 2017 whereby application of the petitioners for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr. P. C. has been rejected.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation is false as the money has been deposited in the account of revisionist no. 3 and after proper verification, the money has been withdrawn only on the direction of the higher authority of the Department. Work has also been certified by the higher authority and as such, no case is made out against these petitioners and the Court below has committed error by not discharge the allegation against these petitioners under Section 239 of the Cr. P. C.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the trial Court has rightly refused to discharge as there is sufficient material on records for framing the charge against these petitioners.

The law has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539. For better appreciation Section 23 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"23. In so far as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In case instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file."

In the present case the allegation is that money has been withdrawn by making fake absentees. If it is approved by the Higher Authorities, it means Higher Authorities are involved, then it cannot be said that no offence is made out. Court below has passed a detailed order and from perusal of the order, it appears that there are sufficient materials suggesting the prima facie case against these petitioners.

In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Kamlesh/