Ashish Saw @ Ashish Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4406 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr. Rev. No. 1293 of 2019
             Ashish Saw @ Ashish Kumar                   ...           ... Petitioner
                                       Versus
             The State of Jharkhand                      ...           ... Opp. Party
                                           ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

             For the Petitioner             : Mr. Deepak Dubey, Advocate
             For the State                  : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. PP
                                           ---
07/25.11.2021:         Heard the parties.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 25.06.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag in Hazaribag Muffasil P.S. Case No.163 of 2018 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No.14 of 2018 whereby prayer for discharge filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that there is no legally admissible material against the petitioner. The material, as alleged, by the prosecution is only (a) confession of the accused (b) confession of the Revisionist (c) tower location of the mobile of Revisionist at the place of occurrence.

Referring to paragraph-54 of the judgment reported in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and another (2019) 16 SCC 547, it has been submitted that there is no material even suggesting strong suspicion against the revisionist and as such, present proceeding is liable to be quashed and the rejection of the discharge is bad in law.

Paragraph-54 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

54. Proceeding on the basis that it is a confession by a co-accused and still proceeding further that there is a joint trial of the accused and that they are accused of the same offences (ignoring the fact that other accused are absconding and the appellant appears to be proceeded against on his own) and having found that there is no recovery from the residence of the appellant of the counterfeit notes and that there is no other material on the basis of which even a strong suspicion could be aroused, we would find that the mandate of the law requires us to free the appellant from being proceeded against. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The order impugned passed by the Sessions Judge framing the charge against the appellant will stand set aside and the appellant will stand discharged.

On the other hand Spl. P.P. has supported the order of rejection, stating that there are prima facie materials against the revisionist and as such, trial should be go on.

It is trite that admissibility/ inadmissibility, sufficiency/ insufficiency, relevancy/ irrelevancy of the materials available on the record cannot be looked into at this stage. If on the basis of the material, strong suspicion arises, pointing guilt of the revisionist, then, the trial must proceed. Confession of the co-accused, bank statement coupled with the tower location of the mobile of the revisionist, raises strong suspicion. Further investigation is still on.

In above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

This criminal revision is accordingly, dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-