Md. Mazid @ Abdul Majid Qurashi and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]sushil harkauli, j.1. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.2. a letter was saint by the government pleader, hazaribagh to the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh alleging that the land reforms deputy collector has passed an erroneous order and that it was a fit case for filing revision against that order and accordingly seeking advice of the deputy commissioner. on the basis of this letter deputy commissioner, hazaribagh started revisional proceedings under section 16 of the bihar tenants holdings (maintenance of records) act, 1973.3. the petitioner has challenged these proceedings on the ground that unless a proper revision is filed before the deputy commissioner, these proceedings could not have been initiated or continued.4. section 16 of the said act is reproduced below for ready reference:16. revision- the collector of the district may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this act or the rules made thereunder by any authority or officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit:provided that the collector shall not entertain any application from any person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within thirty days from the date of the order;provided further that no order modifying, altering, or setting aside, any order made by such authority or officer shall be pissed by the collector unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard...5. to break up that section for clear understanding, it may be read it as follows:the collector of the district may:(i) on an application made to him in this behalfor(ii) for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made in this act or the rules....call for and examine the record...and pass such order as it thinks fit.6. thus, from a reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that the revisional power can lie exercised (1) either if an application is made to the collector/deputy commissioner for revision, and/or (2) it can also be exercised without an application being made for the purpose of satisfying the deputy commissioner about the correctness of the impugned order.7. therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there was no revision filed is not legally sound. secondly, there is no prescribed proforma for filing of a revision which has been bi ought to my notice and which should, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contain grounds and prayers like; a formal revision filed under the civil procedure code.8. in absence of presented proforma, this letter of the government pleader which in fact was complaining against the legality of an order passed by the land reforms deputy collector, if treated as a revision application fulfills the requirement of section 16, and in any case does not violate the conditions mentioned in section 16 to such an extent as would call for interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.9. therefore, i am not inclined to interfere with the proceedings except to the extent that the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh is directed to finally decide that revision by a reasoned order after hearing all affected parties within six weeks of the date en which a certified copy of this order is presented before him.10. with the aforesaid direction this writ petition is disposed of.