Ramkeshwar Sahu Vs. State of Bihar

Ramkeshwar Sahu vs State of Bihar

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Mar 24, 2004

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518070

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/518070
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
Decided On: Mar 24, 2004
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1999
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 215: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, CJM, .Y.Eqbal & Amareshwar Sahay, R.K. Merathia, Narendra Nath Tiwari, JJ] Contempt Proceedings Review Powers of High Court Held, Article 215 of the Constitution vests the High Court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish fo...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed
Acts & sections: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3 and 7

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramkeshwar Sahu

Advocate J.P. Agarwal, Adv.

Respondent

State of Bihar

Advocate A.P.P.

Legal References

Acts: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3 and 7
Reported In: [2004(3)JCR297(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........this appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.6.1999 passed in g.r. no. 18-of 1992 whereby and whereunder the learned special judge, gumla convicted the appellant under section 7(i) and (ii) read with section 3(2)(c) of the ec act and sentenced him to undergo ri one year.2. prosecution case in brief is that md. shafiq, supply inspector, gumla along with akhleshwar prasad singh, assistant director of social security and markanday durai, block supply officer, raided the house of ramkeshwar sahu on 16.11.1992. at the time of raid, mukhia hari singh and vinay kumar kashyap were also present. on search six quintals of sugar and 15 litre of kerosene oil were found but as no paper was shown by the appellant, then in presence of witnesses, seizure list was prepared and the same was given to bal mukund sahu on zimma nama. thereafter fir was lodged and a case under the aforesaid sections was registered. cognizance in the case was taken and learned special judge, gumla recorded evidence of witnesses-both oral and documentary-and held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.3. six witnesses have been examined in this case on behalf of prosecution and two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence. pw 1 is the formal witness, who proved the fir. pw 2 is hari singh, who is a seizure list witness. pw 3 is vinay kumar kashyap. he is also seizure list witness but he has been tendered for cross-examination. pw 4 is markanday , durai. he is block supply officer of buru. pw 5 is md. shafiq. he is informant of the case and pw 6 is io of the case.4. pw 1 is a formal witness who has proved some documents. pw 3 has been tendered for cross-examination. pw 2 is hari singh. he is cultivator. he is a seizure list witness.5. pw 5 is the informant of the case and he has specifically stated that on the verbal order of the d.c. gumla, he raided the house of the appellant and found six bags of sugar and fifteen.....

Full Judgment

Hari Shankar Prasad, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.6.1999 passed in G.R. No. 18-of 1992 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, Gumla convicted the appellant under Section 7(i) and (ii) read with Section 3(2)(c) of the EC Act and sentenced him to undergo RI one year.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that Md. Shafiq, Supply Inspector, Gumla along with Akhleshwar Prasad Singh, Assistant Director of Social Security and Markanday Durai, Block Supply Officer, raided the house of Ramkeshwar Sahu on 16.11.1992. At the time of raid, Mukhia Hari Singh and Vinay Kumar Kashyap were also present. On search six quintals of Sugar and 15 litre of Kerosene Oil were found but as no paper was shown by the appellant, then in presence of witnesses, seizure list was prepared and the same was given to Bal Mukund Sahu on Zimma Nama. Thereafter FIR was lodged and a case under the aforesaid sections was registered. Cognizance in the case was taken and learned Special Judge, Gumla recorded evidence of witnesses-both oral and documentary-and held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

3. Six witnesses have been examined in this case on behalf of prosecution and two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence. PW 1 is the formal witness, who proved the FIR. PW 2 is Hari Singh, who is a seizure list witness. PW 3 is Vinay Kumar Kashyap. He is also seizure list witness but he has been tendered for cross-examination. PW 4 is Markanday , Durai. He is Block Supply Officer of Buru. PW 5 is Md. Shafiq. He is informant of the case and PW 6 is IO of the case.

4. PW 1 is a formal witness who has proved some documents. PW 3 has been tendered for cross-examination. PW 2 is Hari Singh. He is cultivator. He is a seizure list witness.

5. PW 5 is the informant of the case and he has specifically stated that on the verbal order of the D.C. Gumla, he raided the house of the appellant and found six bags of sugar and fifteen litres of kerosene oil illegally kept by the appellant and seizure list was prepared in presence of independent witnesses.

6. PW 4 is Block Supply Officer and has also corroborated the evidence of PW 5 (informant) and supported the case of the prosecution.

7. On the other hand, defence has tried to make out a case that the house which was searched does not belong to the appellant but to his cousin and to this effect, defence witnesses have been examined. DW 1 is Sukra Ohdar. He has proved one Sale Deed, which is marked Ext.-A. DW 2 is Manohar Sahu. He is shopkeeper of Fair Price Shop. He has proved some Government Land Receipts, which is marked Ext.-B. According to this witness, his father and Maneshwar Sahu were own brothers and no partition had taken place between them and in village Pojenga, land and house are still in joint possession. He further admits that in 1992 he had a Fair Price Shop.

8. From perusal of Ext.-A, it appears that Bandhan Gope executed a Sale Deed in favour of Hari Singh and Maneshwar Sahu and from perusal of Ext.-B, it appears that receipts issued on 28.3.1991 was issued in the name of Hari Singh and Manohar Sahu and, therefore, lands were in the joint possession of Hart Singh and Manohar Sahu. It is true that PWs 4 and 5 together with PW 2 have proved recovery of sugar and kerosene oil from the PO and to this effect, prosecution has fully proved the case. But so far as the recovery from the house is concerned, that is said to be in joint possession of Manohar Sahu and the appellant. It is also a fthat Manohar Sahu (DW 2) is licencee of the Fair Price Shop and runs a fair price shop and in that capacity, he must have kept articles in his house belonging to fair price shop and therefore, recovery from that place cannot be said to be from the conscious possession of the appellant and as such, there is dispute whether recovery has been made from that portion of the house which belongs to the appellant or from the portion of the house which belongs to DW 2. In that view of the matter, benefit of doubt goes to the appellant.

9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.6.1999 passed in GR No. 18 of 1992 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bond.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2004 Same Parties Ramkeshwar Sahu vs State of Bihar Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Hari Shankar Prasad, J. Acts & Sections Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3 and 7

Criminal