LexRAM NARESH PRASAD versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 369 RAM NARESH PRASAD A v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2009 FEBRUARY 12, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] )> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 319 - Four accused - Application for summoning of c appellant as accused rejected by trial Court and attained finalty - Conviction of 4 accused - After investigation, final report was submitted relating to appellant which was accepted-After two years, stranger filed revision against the order accepting ·• final report - Sessions Judge allowed revision and directed D ;-" CJM to hear the case - CJM ordered conviction of appellant - Revision thereagainst dismissed - Writ petition also dismissed - On appeal, held: The case raises the questions whether stranger could file a revision and if same is filed late by 2 years could it be entertained without condonation of delay E - Case remitted for deciding these questions - Revision. An FIR was lodged against unknown persons. The allegation was theft of five idols. The investigation was carried out but in the absence of definite clue, final report F was submitted which was accepted by Magistrate. After about week, four persons were arrested. Police submitted supplementary final form against them. Final form was filed against the appellant. Magistrate convicted all the four accused persons. During trial, an application under s.319 G ·- Cr.P.C. was filed by prosecution for summoning the -< appellant as an accused, which was dismissed. The same was not challenged before any higher Court but the investigation was kept alive, After investigation on 22.5.1999, 369 H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A final report was submitted so far as appellant was concerned. The same was accepted. After 2 years, respondent no.2 who was neither the complainant nor having any connection with the alleged offence, filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge 8 against the order dated 22.5.1999. By order dated 18.2.2002, revision p~tition was allowed and CJM was directed to hear the informant or APP, peruse case diary both original as well as supplementary and then pass . order in accordance with law. c On 29.8.2002, CJM passed an order taking cognizance for offences punishaple under ss. 413 and 414 IPC and non-bailable warrant was issued so far as the appellant was concerned. Aggrieved appellant filed a 0 revision petition before Sessions Judge which was dismissed. Questioning correctness of the orders, a writ petition was filed which was dismissed. In, ~ppeal tg thi~ Gour~, ~ppell~nt contended that ~efor~ the orp~r w~s p~s$ed by the Sessions Judge in E revision, the appellant was not heard; that the revision petitioner had no· locus standi to file the petition f:lS he wa~ not the jnfqrmClnt; anq that Sessions Judge did not ~~q!~e abol:'t the que~tion qf maintainability of the revision F p~titip11 @~ fir§t jn~tan~e: Partly allowing the appeal! the Court li~LD: The matter is remitted to High Court to consid@r whether the re'(ision petitiPn befgr~ the SesslQns Judge was maintainable at the instance of Respondent G No.~ and that too after consider~ble length of time; whether the appellant needs to be heard; and whether the informant has to be given the notice. [Para 8] [361-E, F, G] Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra AIR (-1-968) H SC 117 - referred to. j • J • RAM NARESH PRASAD V. 371 STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.] Case Law Reference AIR (1968) SC 117 referred to Para 6 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeai No.290 of 2009 A From the final Judgement and Order dated 17/28.3.2006 B of the High Court of Jharkliand at Ranchi in WP (Crl) No. 284 of 2002. Nagendra Rai, Surya Kant and Pranav Vyas, with him for the Appellant. c Manish Kumar Saran, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Fuzail Khan, Akshaliya Kumar, Shefali Jain, Rajesh Prasad Singh and Ranjana Narayan, for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. D 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. Appellant filed writ E petition (Crl.) No. 284 of 2002 with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.2.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge Palamau in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2001. By the said order learned Sessions Judge set aside order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accept
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.