Dilip Kumar Sah @ Dilip Kumar Saha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 452 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr. M.P. No. 2290 of 2020
                                        ----

Dilip Kumar Sah @ Dilip Kumar Saha ... Petitioner

-versus-

                The State of Jharkhand                 ...      Opposite Party
                                              ----

                CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                    THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
                                              ----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate For the State: Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.

----

5/ 01.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 11.00 a.m. They have no complain in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in P.C.R. Case No.452 of 2013, by which processes under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued. He has also challenged the order dated 18.01.2019 by which attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders impugned are absolutely cryptic and non-speaking and no subjective satisfaction in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been recorded. He relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Others versus State of Jharkhand as reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.

4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I have gone through both the impugned orders. I find that the order issuing processes under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a one line order, which is absolutely cryptic and non-speaking, which does not reflect any subjective satisfaction as required in terms of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also bad as the same is also a one line order and absolutely a non-speaking order.

5. Considering the nature of the orders passed by the Court below and in view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam

@ Rustam & Others versus State of Jharkhand as reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712, I am inclined to allow this criminal miscellaneous petition. Impugned orders dated 03.07.2018 and 18.01.2019 passed in P.C.R. Case No.452 of 2013 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law.

6. This criminal miscellaneous petition, accordingly, stands allowed.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03