Ram Prasad Halwai Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1 inthehighcourtofjharkhandatranchi cr.m.p.no.1984of2012 ramprasadhalwai petitioner versus 1.stateofjharkhand 2.sudhirbesra 3.sukhdeobesra 4.kameshwarbesra 5.rasikbesra 6.nareshbesra 7.iliyasmian 8.asruddinmian ... ... ... opp.parties coram: hon'blemr.justiced.n.patel hon'blemr.justiceprashantkumar forthepetitioners: mr.m.b.lal fortherespondent: mr.pankajkumar,a.p.p. 04/dated:19thdecember,2012 perd.n.patel,j1) the present application has been preferred under 378(4) of the codeofcriminalprocedureforgettingspecialleavetoappealagainstthe judgmentandorderdated17thjuly2012passedbythelearnedjudicial magistrate, 1st class, dhanbad in complaint case no.1998 of 2007 wherebythecomplaintcasefiledbythepetitionerhasbeendismissed.2) thecomplaintcasewasfiledbythecomplainantpetitionerbefore the chief judicial magistrate, dhanbad for allegedly committing an offence under sections 147/341/427/447/379/34 of the indian penal code against opposite party nos. 2 to 8. the case of the complainant petitioner,asperthecomplaintpetition,isthatoppositepartyno.2to8 (originalaccusednos.1to7)forminganunlawfulassembly,armedwith deadly weapons, entered into the tank, belonging to the complainant 2 petitionerandstartedcatchingfish,rearedbythecomplainantpetitioner andwhenthecomplainantpetitionerprotestedthesame,oppositeparty no.2to8usedfilthylanguageandthreatenedhimtokill.3) counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is provisionforstatutoryappealunderthenewlyinsertedprovisotosection 372 of the code of criminal procedure, as the petitioner is the complainant,hehaspreferredthisappealforgrantofspecialleaveto appealundersection378(4)ofthecodeofcriminalprocedure.counsel forthepetitionerhaspointedoutseveralaspectsofthematterbasedupon theevidencerecordedbythetrialcourtandhassubmittedthatspecial leavetoappealmaykindlybegrantedbecausethereareseveralerrorson thefactsandlaw,committedbythetrialcourt.4) counselforthestatea.p.p.hastakenapreliminaryobjectionasto statutory provision is provided under section 372 code of criminal procedure, but special leave to appeal may not be granted to the petitionerandlettherightofstatutoryappealbeexhaustedandthereafter theymaycometothiscourt.thelearneda.p.p.alsosubmittedthatthe provision ofcodeofcriminalprocedurehasbeenamendedwitheffect from31stdecember,2009basedupon154threportofthelawcommission ofindia.itissubmittedbythea.p.p.thatwheneverstatutoryprovisionof preferringanappealisgivenbylaw,theremedymustbeexhaustedfirst and,thereafter,theycanapproachthiscourt.thelearneda.p.p.hasalso taken analogy from writ petition preferred under article 32 of the constitution of india for violation of fundamental rights and in those cases,normallythehon'blesupremecourtissendingthepetitionersto theconcernedhighcourtsunderarticle226oftheconstitutionofindia. 3 similarly,againstthejudgmentandorderoflearnedsinglejudgeofthe highcourt,wheneverletterspatentappealistenable,normallyspecial leave to appeal under article 136 of the constitution of india is not granted.similarly,counselforthestatehasreliedupondecisionsrendered bythefullbenchofhon'blepatnahighcourtinsyedzafrulhassanvs. state (f.b.) reported in 1986 pljr, 274 that whenever there is a concurrent jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail i.e. both by the sessionscourtaswellasbythehighcourt,normallytheanticipatorybail applicationsshouldbepreferredbeforethesessionscourt.inviewofthis analogy,itissubmittedbythecounselforthestatethatinthefactsofthe presentcase,thepartiesarenotremedyless.theyhavearighttoprefer anstatutoryappealagainsttheveryjudgmentofthejudicialmagistrate, dhanbadbeforethesessionscourt,dhanbad.thus,thespecialleaveto appealmaynotbegrantedtothepetitioner.counselforthestatehasalso pointedoutthatwhenevervictimisalsothecomplainanthimself,thenin allsuchcasesstatutoryprovisionofsection372ofthecodeofcriminal procedureshouldberesortedtoandwheneverthecomplainantisnotthe victimlikethecasesinwhichthecomplainantisincometaxofficerorthe officerofthelabourdepartment,ortheofficerofthefoodadulteration department,inallthosecases,complainantandthevictimsaredifferent persons,inthosecases,insteadofpreferringanappealundersection372 ofthecodeofcriminalprocedure,theycanpreferanapplicationunder section 378(4) of the code of criminal procedure for getting special leavetoappeal.butwheneverthecomplainantandthevictimarethe sameperson,thenstatutoryrightofpreferringappealmustbeavailedfirst andinthosecircumstances,withoutpreferringanappealundersectio”372. f the code of criminal procedure,specialleave toappealunder section378(4)ofthecodeofcriminalproceduremaynotbeentertained bythiscourt.5) counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the decisions reported in 2011 maharastra cr.l.j.3473; 2011(1) crimes, 647, m.p.; 2011(6)maharastracr.l.j.165;(2010)5s.c.c.613.wehaveperused the aforesaid decisions. the facts of the present case are absolutely different because the present petitioner is the victim as well as the complainantand,therefore,theyhaveremedyofsection372ofthecode of criminal procedure available to him to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the judicial magistrate, dhanbad,insteadofpreferringanapplicationforgrantingspecialleaveto appealundersection378(4)ofthecodeofcriminalprocedure.6) havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe preliminaryobjectionraisedbythea.p.p.itappearsthatthepresentappeal preferred under section 378(4) of the code of criminal procedure deservestobedismissedmainlyforthefollowingreasons: (i) thepresentpetitioneristhecomplainantaswell as victim. he has preferred a complaint case under under sections147/341/427/447/379/34oftheindianpenalcode beforethechiefjudicialmagistrate,dhanbad. (ii) thelearnedtrialcourtbyjudgmentandorder dated17thjuly2012passedincomplaintcaseno.1998of 2007dismissedthecomplaintpreferredbythepetitioner. (iii) againstthesaidjudgmentandorder,thereisa remedyofappealasprovidedundertheprovisoofsectio”372. fthecodeofcriminalprocedure.section372ofthe codeofcriminalprocedurereadsasunder:372. no appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by this code or by any other law for the time being in force. provided that the victim shall have to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. (emphasis supplied) (iv) theaforesaidprovisohasbeeninsertedbyway ofamendmentinthecodeofcriminalprocedurewitheffect from31stdecember,2009baseduponthe154threportgiven bythelawcommissionofindia. (v) thus,thepetitioner,whoisalsothevictim,he hasstatutoryrighttopreferanappealagainsttheimpugned judgment and order passed by the learned judicial magistrate,1stclass,dhanbad. (vi) the present application has been preferred by thepetitionersundersection378(4)ofthecodeofcriminal procedureforgettingleavetoappeal.section378(4)ofthe codeofcriminalprocedurereadsasunder:378. appealincaseofacquittal. (1) (2) (3) (4) if such an order of' acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the high court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants, special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the high court. (5) (6) (emphasissupplied) 6 (vii) inviewoftheaforesaidsubsection,thepresent applicationhasbeenpreferredforgettingspecialleaveto appeal.weare notin agreementwiththe counsel forthe petitioners mainly for the reason that in the facts of the presentcase, whenthevictimandthecomplainantarethe sameperson(s),thenthecomplainantshavearighttoprefer statutoryappealundersection372ofthecodeofcriminal procedureand,therefore,thespecialleavetoappealcannot begrantedinthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase. wheneverthestatutoryappealisprovided,thepartieshave toavailthestatutoryrighttopreferanappeal. (viii) itfurtherappearsthatinthefactsofthepresent case and also looking to both the aforesaid provisions i.e. section 372 and 378(4), when the complainant is not the victim like in the case, an officer of the incometax department, or the labour department or the food adulteration department, etc, though they have preferred the complaintcase, but, the victims are somebody else, in thosecases,applicationundersection378(2)ofthecodeof criminalprocedureistenableatlaw, becausetheyhaveno right toprefer the statutoryappeal under the provision of section372ofthecodeofcriminalprocedure.whereas,the casesinwhichthecomplainantandthevictimarethesame person,thentheyhavetoavailthestatutoryremedybyway of appeal instead of preferring an application for getting specialleavetoappealdirectlytothehighcourt. 7 (ix) moreover,inajudicialhierarchy,wheneverany appeal or application is tenable at law before the lower court,thenalwaystheapplicantshouldapproachthelower forumfirstsothatafterexhaustingthesaidremedy,stillif the petitioner is aggrieved, he can approach the higher forum.thus,thepetitionerisnotremedyless.moreover,the higherforumwillhaveanadvantageofonemorejudgment overandabove,thejudgmentoflowercourtonthepointof factsandlaw.inajudicialhierarchy,insteadofapproaching directlyhigherforum,iflawpermits,alwaysmattershould befiledinlowerforum.againstthejudgmentandorderof learned single judge of the high court, whenever letters patent appeal or any appeal, is tenable, normally special leave to appeal under article 136 of the constitution of indiaisnotgranted.7) thus,inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thevictimandthe complainantbeingthesamepersonandthecomplaintpetition,registered by the complainantpetitioner for the offence under sections 147/341/427/447/379/34 of the indian penal code, having been dismissedbythelearnedjudicialmagistrate,heshouldfirstexhaustthe remedyavailabletohimundertheprovisionofsection372ofthecodeof criminalprocedure,bypreferringanappealbeforethelearnedsessions judge,dhanbad.8) asacumulativeeffectoftheaforesaidfactsandreasonsandjudicial pronouncements,weherebyrefusetograntleavetoappealtothepresent petitionerundersection378(4)ofthecodeofcriminalprocedureubijus 8 ibi remedum. petitioner not being remedyless under proviso to section 372ofthecodeofcriminalprocedure,lettheremedybywayofstatutory appealbeexhaustedbyhimfirst. thus,thiscriminalmisc.petitionisherebydismissed. (d.n.patel,j) (prashantkumar,j) raman/binit

Judgment:
1 INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.M.P.No.1984of2012 RamPrasadHalwai Petitioner Versus 1.StateofJharkhand 2.SudhirBesra 3.SukhdeoBesra 4.KameshwarBesra 5.RasikBesra 6.NareshBesra 7.IliyasMian 8.AsruddinMian ... ... ... Opp.Parties CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPRASHANTKUMAR ForthePetitioners: Mr.M.B.Lal FortheRespondent: Mr.PankajKumar,A.P.P. 04/Dated:19thDecember,2012 PerD.N.Patel,J

1) The present application has been preferred under 378(4) of the CodeofCriminalProcedureforgettingSpecialLeavetoAppealagainstthe judgmentandorderdated17thJuly2012passedbythelearnedJudicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.1998 of 2007 wherebythecomplaintcasefiledbythepetitionerhasbeendismissed.

2) Thecomplaintcasewasfiledbythecomplainantpetitionerbefore the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for allegedly committing an offence under Sections 147/341/427/447/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 8. The case of the complainant petitioner,asperthecomplaintpetition,isthatoppositepartyNo.2to8 (originalaccusednos.1to7)forminganunlawfulassembly,armedwith deadly weapons, entered into the tank, belonging to the complainant 2 petitionerandstartedcatchingfish,rearedbythecomplainantpetitioner andwhenthecomplainantpetitionerprotestedthesame,oppositeparty No.2to8usedfilthylanguageandthreatenedhimtokill.

3) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is provisionforstatutoryappealunderthenewlyinsertedprovisotoSection 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner is the complainant,hehaspreferredthisappealforgrantofSpecialLeaveto AppealunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.Counsel forthepetitionerhaspointedoutseveralaspectsofthematterbasedupon theevidencerecordedbythetrialCourtandhassubmittedthatSpecial LeavetoAppealmaykindlybegrantedbecausethereareseveralerrorson thefactsandlaw,committedbythetrialCourt.

4) CounselfortheStateA.P.P.hastakenapreliminaryobjectionasto statutory provision is provided under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, but Special Leave to Appeal may not be granted to the petitionerandlettherightofstatutoryappealbeexhaustedandthereafter theymaycometothisCourt.ThelearnedA.P.P.alsosubmittedthatthe provision ofCodeofCriminalProcedurehasbeenamendedwitheffect from31stDecember,2009basedupon154threportoftheLawCommission ofIndia.ItissubmittedbytheA.P.P.thatwheneverstatutoryprovisionof preferringanappealisgivenbylaw,theremedymustbeexhaustedfirst and,thereafter,theycanapproachthisCourt.ThelearnedA.P.P.hasalso taken analogy from writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of fundamental rights and in those cases,normallytheHon'bleSupremeCourtissendingthepetitionersto theconcernedHighCourtsunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia. 3 Similarly,againstthejudgmentandorderoflearnedSingleJudgeofthe HighCourt,wheneverLettersPatentAppealistenable,normallySpecial Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not granted.Similarly,counselfortheStatehasreliedupondecisionsrendered bytheFullBenchofHon'blePatnaHighCourtinSyedZafrulHassanVs. State (F.B.) reported in 1986 PLJR, 274 that whenever there is a concurrent jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail i.e. both by the SessionsCourtaswellasbytheHighCourt,normallytheanticipatorybail applicationsshouldbepreferredbeforetheSessionsCourt.Inviewofthis analogy,itissubmittedbythecounselfortheStatethatinthefactsofthe presentcase,thepartiesarenotremedyless.Theyhavearighttoprefer anstatutoryappealagainsttheveryjudgmentoftheJudicialMagistrate, DhanbadbeforetheSessionsCourt,Dhanbad.Thus,theSpecialLeaveto Appealmaynotbegrantedtothepetitioner.CounselfortheStatehasalso pointedoutthatwhenevervictimisalsothecomplainanthimself,thenin allsuchcasesstatutoryprovisionofSection372oftheCodeofCriminal Procedureshouldberesortedtoandwheneverthecomplainantisnotthe victimlikethecasesinwhichthecomplainantisIncometaxOfficerorthe officeroftheLabourDepartment,ortheOfficeroftheFoodAdulteration Department,inallthosecases,complainantandthevictimsaredifferent persons,inthosecases,insteadofpreferringanappealunderSection372 oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,theycanpreferanapplicationunder Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting Special LeavetoAppeal.Butwheneverthecomplainantandthevictimarethe sameperson,thenstatutoryrightofpreferringappealmustbeavailedfirst andinthosecircumstances,withoutpreferringanappealunderSectio”

372. f the Code of Criminal Procedure,SpecialLeave toAppealunder Section378(4)oftheCodeofCriminalProceduremaynotbeentertained bythisCourt.

5) Counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the decisions reported in 2011 Maharastra Cr.L.J.

3473; 2011(1) Crimes, 647, M.P.; 2011(6)MaharastraCr.L.J.165;(2010)5S.C.C.613.Wehaveperused the aforesaid decisions. The facts of the present case are absolutely different because the present petitioner is the victim as well as the complainantand,therefore,theyhaveremedyofSection372oftheCode of Criminal Procedure available to him to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad,insteadofpreferringanapplicationforgrantingSpecialLeaveto AppealunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.

6) Havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe preliminaryobjectionraisedbytheA.P.P.itappearsthatthepresentappeal preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure deservestobedismissedmainlyforthefollowingreasons: (I) Thepresentpetitioneristhecomplainantaswell as victim. He has preferred a complaint case under under Sections147/341/427/447/379/34oftheIndianPenalCode beforetheChiefJudicialMagistrate,Dhanbad. (II) ThelearnedtrialCourtbyjudgmentandorder dated17thJuly2012passedinComplaintCaseNo.1998of 2007dismissedthecomplaintpreferredbythepetitioner. (III) Againstthesaidjudgmentandorder,thereisa remedyofappealasprovidedundertheprovisoofSectio”

372. ftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.Section372ofthe CodeofCriminalProcedurereadsasunder:

372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Provided that the victim shall have to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. (Emphasis supplied) (IV) Theaforesaidprovisohasbeeninsertedbyway ofamendmentintheCodeofCriminalProcedurewitheffect from31stDecember,2009baseduponthe154threportgiven bytheLawCommissionofIndia. (V) Thus,thepetitioner,whoisalsothevictim,he hasstatutoryrighttopreferanappealagainsttheimpugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,1stClass,Dhanbad. (VI) The present application has been preferred by thepetitionersunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminal Procedureforgettingleavetoappeal.Section378(4)ofthe CodeofCriminalProcedurereadsasunder:

378. Appealincaseofacquittal. (1) (2) (3) (4) If such an order of' acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon Complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants, Special Leave to Appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. (5) (6) (Emphasissupplied) 6 (VII) Inviewoftheaforesaidsubsection,thepresent applicationhasbeenpreferredforgettingSpecialLeaveto Appeal.Weare notin agreementwiththe counsel forthe petitioners mainly for the reason that in the facts of the presentcase, whenthevictimandthecomplainantarethe sameperson(s),thenthecomplainantshavearighttoprefer statutoryappealunderSection372oftheCodeofCriminal Procedureand,therefore,theSpecialLeavetoAppealcannot begrantedinthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase. Wheneverthestatutoryappealisprovided,thepartieshave toavailthestatutoryrighttopreferanappeal. (VIII) Itfurtherappearsthatinthefactsofthepresent case and also looking to both the aforesaid provisions i.e. Section 372 and 378(4), when the complainant is not the victim like in the case, an officer of the Incometax Department, or the Labour Department or the Food Adulteration Department, etc, though they have preferred the complaintcase, but, the victims are somebody else, in thosecases,applicationunderSection378(2)oftheCodeof CriminalProcedureistenableatlaw, becausetheyhaveno right toprefer the statutoryappeal under the provision of Section372oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.Whereas,the casesinwhichthecomplainantandthevictimarethesame person,thentheyhavetoavailthestatutoryremedybyway of appeal instead of preferring an application for getting SpecialLeavetoAppealdirectlytotheHighCourt. 7 (IX) Moreover,inajudicialhierarchy,wheneverany appeal or application is tenable at law before the lower Court,thenalwaystheapplicantshouldapproachthelower forumfirstsothatafterexhaustingthesaidremedy,stillif the petitioner is aggrieved, he can approach the higher forum.Thus,thepetitionerisnotremedyless.Moreover,the higherforumwillhaveanadvantageofonemorejudgment overandabove,thejudgmentoflowerCourtonthepointof factsandlaw.Inajudicialhierarchy,insteadofapproaching directlyhigherforum,iflawpermits,alwaysmattershould befiledinlowerforum.Againstthejudgmentandorderof learned Single Judge of the High Court, whenever Letters Patent Appeal or any appeal, is tenable, normally Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiaisnotgranted.

7) Thus,inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thevictimandthe complainantbeingthesamepersonandthecomplaintpetition,registered by the complainantpetitioner for the offence under Sections 147/341/427/447/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, having been dismissedbythelearnedJudicialMagistrate,heshouldfirstexhaustthe remedyavailabletohimundertheprovisionofSection372oftheCodeof CriminalProcedure,bypreferringanappealbeforethelearnedSessions Judge,Dhanbad.

8) Asacumulativeeffectoftheaforesaidfactsandreasonsandjudicial pronouncements,weherebyrefusetograntleavetoAppealtothepresent petitionerunderSection378(4)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureUbijus 8 ibi remedum. Petitioner not being remedyless under proviso to Section 372oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,lettheremedybywayofstatutory appealbeexhaustedbyhimfirst. Thus,thisCriminalMisc.Petitionisherebydismissed. (D.N.Patel,J) (PrashantKumar,J) Raman/Binit