Back
2013 Supreme(Jhk) 943
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
R.R. PRASAD, J.
Kumar Arjun @ Arjun Singh - Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P.No.1890 of 2013
Decided On : 6.8.2013
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, and the court cannot take cognizance based on baseless documents
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceeding - Legal provision discussed by the court relates to quashing of criminal proceeding based on lack of evidence and illegality in taking cognizance of the offence
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against them, arguing that they were being prosecuted as a partner of a company without evidence of their involvement in the alleged offence
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the document supplied by the Commercial Tax Department, upon which the petitioner was being prosecuted, was baseless and could not assume the characteristic of legal evidence. The court concluded that there was no material showing the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, and therefore, the order taking cognizance was quashed
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of evidence implicating the petitioner in the alleged offence and the legality of taking cognizance based on insufficient grounds
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established is that the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, and the court cannot take cognizance based on baseless documents
Final Decision: The court quashed the order taking cognizance of the offence, thereby allowing the petitioner's application
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S case no.461 of 1998 including the order dated 13.6.2002 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that when information was received that a truck, bearing registration no.UP-32T-6335 loaded with coal is proceeding towards Dhansar Road, it was intercepted by the personnel of CISF who asked the driver and cleaner to produce documents under which coal was being carried. They failed to produce any document and therefore, a case was registered as Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case no.461 of 1998 under Sections 379, 411, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code suspecting the coal to be stolen. The matter was investigating upon. During investigation, the statements of the driver and also the cleaner were recorded. Further during investigation when it transpired that coal belongs to M/s. Premier Hard Coke Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., a document was called for from the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department which was made available. From it, it could be known that the petitioner is one of the partners of the said firm. Thereupon a supplementary charge sheet was submitted whereby the petitioner was sent up for trial. Thereupon cognizance of the office was taken, vide order dated 13.6.2012 against the petitioner which is under challenge.
4. Mr. Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor anything did transpire during investigation showing involvement of the petitioner in any manner, still the charge sheet has been submitted simply on the ground that coal belongs to a firm known as M/s. Premier Hard Coke Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. to which the petitioner as per document supplied by the Commercial Tax Department is one of the partners but that document never happens to be relevant for prosecuting the petitioner.
5. In this regard, it was further submitted that it is true that the petitioner was one of the partners of the then M/s. Premier Hard Coke Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. which was a partnership firm which firm subsequently was incorporated under the Companies Act on 5th day of April, 1990, to which three persons namely, Ram Chandra Singh, Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh and Smt.Madhuri Singh were the Directors. Of them, Ram Chandra Singh was the Managing Director and thereby it is quite evident that the petitioner has never been the Director of the said company, still charge sheet was submitted on the basis of old document which was related to the partnership firm which cannot be a valid document for prosecuting the petitioner and therefore, order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein in paragraph 10, it has been stated that during investigation, it was revealed that the said coal found in the truck was loaded by the owner and employee of the coal company, namely, M/s. Premium Hard Coke Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., situated near Bakhra Mahavir Mandir.
7. Further it has been stated that the Commercial Tax Department was requested/enquired about the owner of the said company and the Department, vide its letter dated 21.9.2008 revealed the names of six persons including the petitioner to be the owner/partners of the said company which is evident from paragraphs 67 and 70 of the counter affidavit.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into account the case made out by the parties, it does appear that the petitioner is being prosecuted for the reason that he happens to be the partner of the company, namely, M/s. Premium Hard Coke Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. owner of which company got the coal loaded on the truck but, as per the averment made in the petition, the said partnership firm was incorpor
