Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Hari Prasad Sah - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....courtanditappearsthattheinvestigatingofficerhasinadvertentlywritten thisstatementinthecasediary.itappearsthattheinvestigatingofficer wasdesperateingettingproductionwarrantandon11th april,2012,an applicationwasgivenanditwasadjournedaftermorethanonemonthi.e. 15thmay,2012andagainfor23rdmay,2012,but,theproductionwarrants werenotgivenandonebyonefortwooftheaccused,bailwasgrantedby 2 theconcernedtrialcourtsbecausethestatementmighthavebeenwritten inadvertentlyinthecasediarybytheinvestigatingofficer.3. lookingtotheaforesaidfacts,weseenoreasontoinitiateanyaction forcontemptofcourtagainsttheinvestigatingofficer,namely,hariprasad sah.accordingly,thiscontemptproceedingis,hereby,dropped. (d.n.patel,j.) (shreechandrashekhar,j.) ajay/

Judgment:

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Contempt(Criminal)CaseNo.3of2013 Courtonitsownmotion Petitioner Versus HariPrasadSah Respondent CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR FortheAppellant : Ms.AnubhaRawatChoudhary,AmicusCuriae FortheRespondent: Mr.R.S.Mazumdar,Sr.Advocate 05/Dated:15 th April,2013 PerD.N.Patel,J.:

1. ThepresentcasehasbeenregisteredinthisHighCourtbecauseof thereferencemadebytheJudicialMagistrate,1st Class,Hazaribagdated 5thDecember,2012.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the contemnor and also the learnedAmicusCuriae.Theyhavearguedthecaseindetailandsubmitted thatthepoliceofficerwhowasinchargeoftheinvestigationhadpreferred anapplicationforgettingproductionwarrantsofsixaccusedwhowerein judicialcustodyinsomedifferentoffences.Thisapplicationwasgivenon 11th April,2012.Thematterwasthereafteradjournedfor15th May,2012 and, thereafter, the matter was again adjourned for 23rd May, 2012. Productionwarrantwasnotgiventothepoliceandthepolicehastorecord in the case diaryas towhathas happenedin the case.In thatprocess, statementwaswritteninthecasediarythatApneremandkeliyeaawedan dediyahai,remandkarnayanahikarnamerakaamhai.Thissentence was found to be objectionable by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, HazaribaginthecasebearingG.R.No.1855of2011(GolaP.S.CaseNo.49 of2011).Lookingtothefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,itappearsthat thesentenceusedinthecasediaryisneverobstructingtheprocessofthe CourtanditappearsthattheInvestigatingOfficerhasinadvertentlywritten thisstatementinthecasediary.ItappearsthattheInvestigatingOfficer wasdesperateingettingproductionwarrantandon11th April,2012,an applicationwasgivenanditwasadjournedaftermorethanonemonthi.e. 15thMay,2012andagainfor23rdMay,2012,but,theproductionwarrants werenotgivenandonebyonefortwooftheaccused,bailwasgrantedby 2 theconcernedtrialcourtsbecausethestatementmighthavebeenwritten inadvertentlyinthecasediarybytheInvestigatingOfficer.

3. Lookingtotheaforesaidfacts,weseenoreasontoinitiateanyaction forcontemptofCourtagainsttheInvestigatingOfficer,namely,HariPrasad Sah.Accordingly,thiscontemptproceedingis,hereby,dropped. (D.N.Patel,J.) (ShreeChandrashekhar,J.) Ajay/