Jharkhand High Court
Birbal Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No.1063 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1063 of 2022
Birbal Pandit, aged about 45 years, son of Late Parmeshwar Pandit,
Resident of Village -Malhara, Post Office -Sarouni Bazar, Police Station -
Godda (Muffasil), District -Godda.
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including
the order dated 14.02.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Godda whereby and where under the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Godda issued bailable warrant of arrest
against the petitioner in connection with Godda (M) P.S. Case No.
51 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner files a copy of the
charge sheet. Keep the same in the record.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is an
accused of Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 51 of 2002 corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002. After investigation of the case, the
charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for having
committed the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/
341/323/324/325/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 25(1-b)A/35 of the Arms Act; while keeping the
investigation pending in respect of the offences punishable under
Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The case was
committed to the court of sessions by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate vide his order dated 10.01.2003 in G.R. Case No. 167 of
2002. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the
petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under
Section 147/307 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act and under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act
in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2003. The learned Sessions Judge vide its
Judgment dated 01.07.2003 in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2003
acquitted the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It appears
that on 16.11.2010, in the said G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002,
supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner
for having committed offences punishable under Section 3/4 of
the Explosive Substances Act in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Godda. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda,
transferred the case to the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate as the earlier charge sheet was transferred to the Court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda for commitment to
the Court of Sessions. It appears that the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate oblivious of the fact that the case has already been
committed to the court of sessions, vide order dated 24.03.2011
issued summons inter-alia to the petitioner who was cited as an
accused person in the supplementary charge sheet and
subsequently vide order dated 14.02.2018 issued bailable warrant
without service report of the summon issued against the
petitioner.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that since the petitioner has already faced the trial and acquitted
by the Sessions Court and as the case has already been committed
to the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any fresh order in the case.
It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without service
report of the summons being issued to the petitioner ought not
have issued the bailable warrant of arrest. Hence, it is submitted
that the order dated 14.02.2018, passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and where under the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda issued bailable warrant of arrest
against the petitioner in connection with Godda (M) P.S. Case No.
51 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 167 of 2002 be quashed
and set aside.
6. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand submits that
perusal of the record reveals that the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Godda was not aware that the case has
already been committed to the court of Sessions and the Sessions
Judge has recorded an order of acquittal in Sessions Case No. 6 of
2003 in the Sessions Trial arising out of the selfsame Godda (M)
P.S. Case No. 51 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 167 of
2002, hence in case, the order dated 14.02.2018 is quashed, the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate be directed to pass a
fresh order keeping in view the facts of the case.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that it is a settled principle of law that when the
Court issues a summon to an accused person, it must ensure that
the summon is served upon the accused person and without
receipt of the service report of the summons, in a mechanical
manner, the warrant of arrest ought not to be issued.
8. It appears that though the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Godda vide order 16.11.2010 transferred the case to
the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda
but vide the order of the Sessions Judge dated 23.07.2015, the case
was again transferred back to the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Godda and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Godda has issued the bailable warrant of arrest without the
summon issued to the petitioner having ever being served upon
him.
9. Hence, the said order dated 14.02.2018, passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and where
under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda issued
bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner in connection with
Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 51 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 167 of 2002 is quashed and set aside.
10. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda may pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
11. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 10th January, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
