Union Bank Of India vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3512 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Union Bank Of India vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Cr. Rev. No.39 of 2025
                         ....

Union Bank of India, Assets Recovery Branch Office through its Authorised Officer Anup Bhagat ......Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Vikram Kumar Tiwari

3. Kalpana Tiwari ......Opp. Parties

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P ......

Order No.04/26.03.2025 It appears that the explanation furnished by Sri Chandan, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, vide letter No.378 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 that he had already sent the photocopy of the Lower Court Records along with the Case Diary in reference to Criminal Revision No.39 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No.37 of 2025 but the letter no.195 of 2025 dated 13.02.2025 reveals that it was sent in Criminal Revision No.31 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No.37 of 2025.

Though, the explanation was furnished by learned CJM, Ranchi, is not so satisfactory, however, the concerned Dealing Assistant is present before the Court and stated that the Lower Court Records have been received. However, the explanation furnished by Sri Chandan, learned Chief Judicial, Ranchi is accepted for the present with the direction to remain careful in future.

2. I.A. No.186 of 2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the

delay of 28 days in filing this instant Criminal Revision Application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to delay in obtaining the certified copy of the plaint filed in Sub- ordinate Court, petitioner could not file this Revision Application within time hence the delay of 28 days condoned for filing this Criminal Revision Application.

4. Learned APP has raised objection.

5. It appears from the record that then learned C.J.M, Ranchi has passed the judgment of acquittal in respect of O.P. No.2 and 3 with regard to Defalcation of Rs.1,74,39,174/- on technical grounds. Hence the delay of 28 days in filing the instant Criminal Revision Application is hereby condoned.

Thus, I.A. No.186 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

6. It appears from the Office note dated 17.03.2025 that the notice undelivered registered cover sent to O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3 have returned with the endorsement that "No such person in given address".

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may permitted to take steps for substituted service of notice to the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3 by way of paper publication.

8. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take steps for substituted service of notice upon O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3 by way of paper publication in two local Newspapers in Hindi and English where the O.P No.2 and O.P. No.3 was lastly residing i.e. Ranchi and for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks from today and office shall

issue draft of notice within two weeks thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file supplementary affidavit with regard to publication of notice in newspaper.

9. Put up this case on 10th June 2025.

10. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file supplementary affidavit with regard to the publication of notice by filing Supplementary Affidavit by way of relevant paper cuttings of the notice.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-