Jharkhand High Court
Md. Afzal vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 1 July, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1815 of 2023
Md. Afzal, aged about 49 years, son of late Hazi Abdul Rauf,
resident of 113B Block, Dhatkidih, near Central Maidan, P.O. &
P.S.- Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. PP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under
Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer for quashing the order dated
09.05.2023 passed in Cr. Rev. no. 45 of 2023 by learned Sessions
Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereby the learned
Sessions Judge has dismissed the Cr. Revision application filed
by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.01.2023 passed
in connection with G.R.Case no. 1349 of 2021 by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur; whereby and where under,
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur rejected the
discharge petition.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was running a
factory of Gutka in his premises illegally. The house of the
petitioner was raided by the police along with Magistrate. The
house was duly locked. The lock was broken in the presence of
the Executive Magistrate deputed as also the independent
witnesses. The search of the house was made and during
search, machines for preparing Gutaka, wrapper, electronic
weighing scale and other materials were seized. On the basis of
the written report of the Food Safety Officer, East Singhbhum at
Jamshedpur, Bistupur P.S. case no. 175 of 2022 was registered.
The police upon investigation of the case found the allegation
against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet;
consequent upon which, vide order dated 16.06.2021, learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 188, 269, 270 of IPC
and under Sections 24/26 of COTPA, 2003. When the matter
was pending for consideration of charge, the petitioner filed a
discharge petition, on the ground that since he let out his house
on rent to Irba Khan, hence, the petitioner be discharged.
Further, Irba Khan to whom the petitioner claims to let the
house on rent, died much prior to the date of occurrence on
30.07.2020. Learned trial court considered that the landlord
cannot absolve himself of the liability for the rented premises
utilized for any illegal activity. The defence of the petitioner can
be considered at the time of the trial and rejected the discharge
petitioner. In the order dated 09.05.2023, in Cr. Rev. no. 45 of
2023, learned Sessions Judge, considered the settled principle of
law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported
in (2005) 1 SCC 568 to the effect that the materials produced by
the prosecution only is to be considered at the time of framing
of charge and not the one produced by the accused and in para
18 of the said judgment, the settled principle of law was
reiterated to the effect that at the stage of framing of charge, the
defence of the accused cannot be put forth and further it was
observed that permitting the accused to adduce his defence at
the stage of framing of charge, is against the criminal
jurisprudence and considering the allegation against the
petitioners observed that the learned CJM, has properly
considered the materials placed before it, and there is no
illegality and dismissed the revision application.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
allegation against the petitioner is false and the petitioner is
innocent. The petitioner has been given the privilege of
anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ABA
No. 267 of 2021, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made
in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
5. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer of the petitioner and submits that it being the settled
principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge the
defence of the accused is not to be considered and the discharge
as sought by the petitioner, is only on the ground of defence
that he let out his house on rent but that defence itself is not
sustainable in law in the sense that the person, to whom the
petitioner gave his house on rent, was no more alive on the
date of the occurrence and the petitioner has not disclosed in
this criminal miscellaneous petition that after the death of the
Irba Khan, who was in possession of the place of occurrence
house, so the natural corollary is that the petitioner being
indisputably the owner of the house concerned, is the owner
and in possession of the same, after the death of the person, to
whom the house was rented. It is then submitted that thus, no
illegality has been committed by the learned JMFC or learned
Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in the said two
orders. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous
petition being without any merit be dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it
is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law,
that at the time of framing of charge, the material placed by the
prosecution only is to be considered, and not that of the
defence. It is also settled principle of law that at the time of
framing of charge, the court concerned, must only see whether
there is any prima facie case against the accused and if the prima
facie case exists, then the charges can be framed.
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, indisputably the person to
whom the petitioner claims to have been given the house in
question on rent was dead much before the alleged date of
occurrence and the petitioner has not whispered a word as to
who was in possession of the house in question, after the death
of the person, to whom the house was rented, the petitioner do
not dispute that he is the owner of the house.
8. Under such circumstances, this court has no hesitation in
holding that the defence put forth by the petitioner is not of
such a nature as to absolve him of the entire allegations made
against him. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that it
being the settled principle of law that the defence of the
petitioner is not to be considered, at the time of the framing of
the charge there is no illegality in the order dated 04.01.2023
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in
connection with G.R.Case no. 1349 of 2021 or the order passed
by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur on
09.05.2023 passed in Cr. Rev. no. 45 of 2023.
9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 1st July, 2024
Smita /AFR
