Jharkhand High Court
Md. Irfan Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Criminal Revision No. 427 of 2015
Md. Irfan Ansari, s/o-Sahwan Ansari, r/o-village-Hariharpur, PO+PS-
Hariharpur, District-Dhanbad ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. M. B. Lal, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, APP
-------
Order No. 03/Dated: 21st July 2022
Hariharpur PS Case No. 15 of 2011 was instituted into the
incident which occurred on 20th February 2011 in Hariharpur panchayat.
After the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner
who faced the trial on the charge under sections 143, 341, 323 and 353 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC).
2. In Trial No. 1097 of 2015, the petitioner has been convicted and
sentenced to RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 353 IPC
with default stipulation to undergo further SI for 15 days and RI for two
months under section 143 IPC.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2015 preferred by the convict who is
the petitioner before this Court was dismissed on 31st March 2015.
4. The trail Court records reveal that on 08th January 2015 an
application seeking remand of the petitioner in Hariharpur PS Case No. 15
of 2011 was made and allowed by the trial Court.
5. On that basis, a statement was made before this Court on 06 th
May 2015 that the petitioner was in custody since 05 th January 2015
(wrongly mentioned instead of 08th January 2015) and taking into
consideration the aforesaid fact that the petitioner has remained in custody
for about five months he was released on bail.
6. Mr. M. B. Lal, the learned counsel for the petitioner raises
inter alia the following two fold contentions (i) the prosecution witnesses do
not speak about any assault or use of criminal force by the petitioner and
(ii) offence under section 143 IPC is not attracted against sole accused.
7. The offence under section 353 IPC deals with use of criminal
force to restrain/prevent any official from discharging his official duty. The
prosecution case is that the informant with the team of officials visited
Hariharpur panchayat for verification of allotment of houses under Indira
Aawas Scheme and found that few persons who had their own pucca houses
were also allotted houses under the scheme. At the relevant time, wife of the
petitioner was Mukhia of village-Hariharpur and when he came to know that
the list submitted by his wife has been objected to he started pressurizing the
petitioner and others to approve the same. In the process, a scuffle took
place and the petitioner instigated the villagers and tried to snatch papers
from the inspecting team. The appellate Court has noticed that PW3
specifically stated about snatching of papers by the petitioner. Similarly,
PW4 and PW5 both supported the prosecution case against the petitioner.
8. Section 350 IPC defines criminal force to mean intentional use
of force even without consent of the person and intention or knowledge
about use of force which may cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person
would fall within the definition of criminal force under section 350 IPC. The
statutory illustration (b), (d) and (e) make the definition of criminal force
under section 350 IPC abundantly clear that even annoyance caused to the
affected person by any act of accused would fall within the definition of
criminal force. The evidence tendered by PW3, PW4 and PW5 establishes
use of force by the petitioner to prevent discharge of official duty by the
informant and the other members of the inspecting team.
9. By now it is well settled that in exercise of powers under the
revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not enter into minute
re-examination of the evidences laid during the trial. The revisional powers
can be exercised by the High Court where the judgment delivered by the
criminal Court suffers from patent illegality resulting in miscarriage of
justice.
10. In "State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan
Namboodiri" (1999) 2 SCC 452 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:
"5. .... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call
for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose
of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety
of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the
jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the
High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said
revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an
appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second
appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be
appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence
and come to its own conclusion on the same when the
evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as
well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring
feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would
otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. ..."
11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to accept
the present criminal revision petition. The plea on quantum of sentence
raised on the ground that the petitioner remained in jail for five months also
does not merit acceptance. The petitioner has criminal antecedent as would
appear from the order dated 08th January 2015 passed in Trial No. 1097 of
2015 and, moreover, the period of custody spent in jail by him was in
connection to another case.
12. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter
and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 427 of 2015 is dismissed.
13. Bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06 th May 2015 is
hereby cancelled. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court
concerned to serve the remaining sentence.
14. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned
through 'FAX'.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Tanuj/-
