Bagrai Champia vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 5110 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
                     Criminal Revision No. 730 of 2015
                                 --------

Bagrai Champia, son of Boisa Champia, resident of Village-Bamhani, PO&PS-Murhu, District-Khunti ... ... Petitioner

Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

-------

For the Petitioner        : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, APP
                                   -------
Order No. 05/ Dated: 16th December 2022

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 25(1-B)a/26 of the Arms Act and section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2015 filed by the petitioner against the judgment of his conviction in T.R No.23 of 2015 has been dismissed on 30th April 2015.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on 30th November 2022 by the Sub-Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge of Khunti PS on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.

Paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit reads as under: "4. That the deponent submits that upon receipt of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court issued a letter dated 21.11.2022 to the Officer-in-Charge, Murhu Police Station to verify the whereabout and life status of the accused petitioner who was residing within the jurisdiction of Murhu Police Station.

5. That the deponent submits that the Officer-in-Charge, Murhu Police Station got the matter verified regarding the whereabout and life status of the accused petitioner Bagrai Champia who was an active member of P.L.F.I. a banned organization. During course of enquiry it was found that the accused petitioner was killed in the year 2019 in an encounter with the Bano Police within the District of Simdega which has been certified by the Mukhiya and Ward member, Panchayat Ganaloya Block Murhu, District Khunti."

Mr. S.K. Srivastava, the learned APP refers to Order IX Rule 8 and Order XXII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to submit that since 30 days after the death of the petitioner, his legal heir/successor has failed to file an 2 Criminal Revision No. 730 of 2015

application for substitution the present criminal revision petition has to be dismissed as abated.

Ordered as such.

However, a liberty is reserved with the legal heir/successor of the deceased petitioner to file an appropriate application for setting-aside the abatement which, of course, shall be heard and decided on its own merits.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K.