IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 332 of 2014

1. Lalsin Munda son of Late Shambhu Munda

(deleted v/o dated 25.08.2020)

2. Abdul Latif Ansari, son of Late Sauhar Mian

3. Feku Yadav, son of Late Dhori Yadav

…

…

Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

... … Opposite Party

---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner s

: Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate

For Opp. Party- State

: Mr. Bishumbhar Shastri,

Advocate

---

Through Video Conferencing

---

10/26.08.2020

1.

Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners.

2.

Heard

Mr.

Bishumbhar

Shastri,

learned

counsel

appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand.

3.

This criminal revision application has been filed against

the judgment and order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the court of

the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat

(Bokaro) whereunder the judgement of conviction and order of

sentence dated 05.08.2009, passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, sentencing the

petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years

under section 411 of Indian Penal Code in Chandrapura P.S.

Case No. 102/02 dated 05.12.2002, G.R. No. 1040/2002, T.R. No.

301 of 2009 has been confirmed.

4.

So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he has expired

during the pendency of this criminal revision and his name has

been struck off vide order dated 25.08.2020.

Arguments of the petitioners

2

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

implements, which were alleged to have been used for the

purposes of digging of coal were never produced before the

learned trial court as material exhibits and so far as coal is

concerned, the same was alleged to have been recovered and

handed over to the management of Central Coalfields Ltd., but

neither any receipt of that handing over of the coal to Central

Coalfields Ltd. has been exhibited, nor any official of the

Central Coalfields Ltd. has been examined to substantiate that

the recovered coal was handed over to the Central Coalfields

Ltd.. He also submits that all the witnesses including seizure list

witnesses in the present case are part of the raiding team and

accordingly, they are interested witnesses. There is no

independent witness and the investigating officer of the case

has not been examined. He submits that in a case where all the

witnesses are part of the raiding team, the evidence should

have been carefully scrutinized by the learned trial court before

convicting the petitioners and also by the learned appellate

court while upholding the conviction of the petitioners. He

submits that non-examination of investigating officer has

seriously prejudiced the case of the present petitioners.

6.

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the petitioners have remained in custody for a

period from 06.12.2002 to 01.02.2003 and thereafter from

04.04.2014 to 30.04.2014 and as per the allegations, the

petitioners were found to be in possession of illegal coal which

was worth Rs.6,000/-.

Arguments of the opposite party- State

7.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite

party- State Mr. Bishumbhar Shastri has submitted that all the

prosecution witnesses including the seizure list witnesses have

supported the prosecution case and non-examination of the

investigating officer is not fatal to the case. The learned counsel

3

has further submitted that the learned appellate court has

considered the arguments of the petitioners regarding non-

examination of the investigating officer as well as all the aspects

of the matter and has passed a speaking order. He submits that

there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity, nor any

irregularity in the i