Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Robert LalchungnungaChongthu @ R L Chongthu, Son of Late Rokunga Chougthu – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cognizance order for offenses detailed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. arguments against prosecution and sanction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court's findings on evidence and legality. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. dismissal of the quashing petition and trial directive. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
PRAYER:-
2. The present petition preferred by the petitioner for quashing of cognizance order dated 01.06.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No.112 of 2005 dated 24.04.2005 whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 109 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) as well as Section 30 of the ARMS ACT and for quashing the supplementary charge-sheet No.834 of 2020 dated 31.08.2020 submitted under Sections 109 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IP
The court ruled that prior exoneration does not prevent prosecution if new evidence arises, validating the cognizance taken against the petitioner for violations under IPC and the Arms Act.
Issuance of large number of fake arms licenses -There is no evidence with regard to the conspiracy as such the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in absence of any such evidence.
The timing for raising issues regarding absence or vitiation of sanction is crucial, and a mere error, omission, or irregularity in sanction is not fatal unless it results in the failure of justice o....
The court ruled that inherent powers to quash proceedings should be exercised cautiously, emphasizing that allegations must be substantiated to avoid misuse of judicial processes.
Cognizance cannot be taken twice for the same offence, and prosecution sanction is mandatory for public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Mere procedural violations by public servants do not constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act without evidence of dishonest intention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
