Janardan Kumar Sahu @ Janardhan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2849 Jhar

                              1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Cr. Revision No. 1541 of 2018
Janardan Kumar Sahu @ Janardhan Kumar Sahu
                                      ......         Petitioner
                      Versus
The State of Jharkhand                   ....... Opp. Party
                      ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP

-----------

th 11/Dated: 14 August, 2023

This Criminal Revision No.1541 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in Spt. G.R.No.841 of 2012, arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.273 of 2012 by which the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 239 Cr.P.C has been rejected.

2. As per FIR, the informant Pradip Kumar, Branch Manager, Gramin Bank, Gumla has lodged the FIR regarding defalcation of Rs.31,00,000/- against one Jayant Kumar Ram for illegally releasing of Rs.56,00,000/- from Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Branch Gumla between 29.09.2011 to 17.05.2012 showing deposit of less amount on different dates receipt from the State Bank of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the petitioner name has transpired on basis of confessional statement of co-accused Jayant Kumar Ram. It is

submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner hence the impugned order may be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner's name has come only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused which has been discussed in detail at para 75 of the confessional statement of co-accused and hence this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed.

5. Perused the records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides and also the report sent by Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla vide letter no.493/2023 dated 02.08.2023.

6. It transpires from the report sent by Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla that the charges have been framed against this petitioner on 18.12.2018.

7. It further transpires from the report that the trial of co- accused, Jayant Kumar Ram has been disposed of vide judgment dated 14.08.2020 by conviction for committing the offence under section 409/34 of the IPC.

8. It transpires from the record that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in Criminal Revision No.404 of 2013 which was remitted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice H.C. Mishra) on 04.07.2013 to pass fresh order.

9. Thereafter the petitioner again preferred Cr. Revision No.1035 of 2014 which was also disposed of vide order dated 03.4.2018 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) to pass fresh order.

10. Thereafter the present impugned order has been passed on the basis of the petition filed by the petitioner and in the light of the observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

11. It transpires from the impugned order that the petitioner was posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier and was made In-charge of extension counter of Jharkhand Gramin Bank Branch situated in the office of district Gumla.

12. It appears from the impugned order that the co-accused Jayant Kumar Ram has named this petitioner in his confessional statement.

13. It is well settled that the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges.

14. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Lakhotia Vs. The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 (1) JLJR 127 at Para-25 as follows:

"Para-25:- The learned court below, while considering the petition for discharge considered the scope of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. and recorded that hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression „hearing the submissions of the accused‟ cannot mean opportunity to file material is to be granted to the accused. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police."

15. It has been held that in the case of State By The Inspector Of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another reported in 2018 (13) SCC 455 at paragraph No.10 as follows:-

"Para-10:- If on the basis of the material on record, the Court would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the material on record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the case may be, only with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the

alleged offence. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the presumption that materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence."

16. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 at para17.3, 17.6 and 18 as follows:-

"Para-17.3:-The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court.

Para-17.6:- The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.

Para-18:- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression. "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any. produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge. the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi)."

17. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors and in the case of Kanta Devi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 at para-39 as follows:-

"Para-39:- The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the

power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial.

18. In view of the discussion made above and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the present Criminal Revision filed on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any merit and accordingly, Criminal Revision No.1541 of 2018 is hereby dismissed.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-