CAV on 16.04.2019 Pronounced on 26.04.2019

1. I.A. No.9905 of 2018 in Cr. Revision No.576 of 2017 and I.A. No.450 of 2019 in Cr. Revision No.972 of 2017 have been filed on behalf of the applicant-Ramgarh Sponge Iron Private Limited seeking intervention and for impleading it as opposite party no.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the said interlocutory applications, the learned counsel for the applicant-Ramgarh Sponge Iron Private Limited is permitted to address this Court.

I.A. No.9905 of 2018 and I.A. No.450 of 2019 stand disposed of.

2. Both these revision petitions have been filed, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the common judgment dated 1^st April, 2017 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal Nos.17 of 2015 and 24 of 2015, whereby the said Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners by upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28^th January, 2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

Further challenge has been made to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28^th January, 2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with G.R. No.2303 of 2011, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 385/34, 386/34 and 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months under Section 386/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the written report of Birendra Prasad Rai, Manager, Personnel of Ramgarh Sponge Iron Private Limited, Hosir (P.W.5), in brief, is that on 25^th August, 2011 the informant was working in his factory office at Hosir. During that time, one Randhir Gupta- the petitioner of Cr. Revision No.972 of 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘P-1’), the personal associate of Yogendra Sao, a Congress Worker, the petitioner of Cr. Revision No.576 of 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘P-2’) called the informant at the factory gate and asked him as to why he did not pay the demanded money of Rs.5.00 lacs to P-2. Thereafter, P-1 contacted P-2 on his mobile phone and forced the informant to talk to him whereupon P-2 threatened the informant as to why the demanded money of Rs.5.00 lacs was not sent to him as yet. P-2 further threatened the informant that the said factory would be closed and also threatened him to kill. It was further alleged in the written report that 3-4 months prior to the said occurrence when P-2 was a member of the Committee of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly on Pollution Control, he and P-1 had threatened the informant on his Mobile No.9386613800 from different mobile numbers i.e. 9431501558, 9131819971 and 9431168642 by demanding Rs.5.00 lacs near Argadda Check Post. It was also alleged by the informant that P-1 was inhabit of coming to the factory on regular intervals and used to threaten him to fulfil the demanded money failing which he would be killed.

On the basis of the said written report, a first information report, being Giddi P.S. Case No.55 of 2011, was registered against the petitioners under Sections 385 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code on 25^th August, 2011. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and, thereafter, the cognizance of the offences under Sections 385, 386 and 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners.

4. The trial of the case commenced and the prosecution in order to prove the charges against the petitioners examined altogether nine witnesses. P.W.1- Bandi Ram Toppo is the Investigating Officer of the case; P.W.2- Madan Mohan Singh, se