IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 831 of 2018

Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh

…… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Devendra Kumar

…… Opp. Parties

-----

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

For the petitioner : Mr. Akhori Awinash Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.

For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Keshri, Advocate

…..

09/27.06.2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.

2.

2.

The Criminal Revision No. 831 of 2018 has been filed on

behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.04.2018

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2017 whereby the Criminal

Appeal No. 90 of 2017 preferred against the judgment of acquittal

dated 11.05.2017 passed by Shri Bishwanath Oraon, Judicial

Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C. P. Case No.

984 of 2011 was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file

afresh after obtaining leave from the Hon’ble Court.

3.

It is submitted that impugned orders passed by the learned

Court below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further

submitted that without considering the facts and circumstances of

the case and the material available on record, vide judgment dated

11.05.2017, Shri Bishwanath Oraon, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class,

Dhanbad in connection with C. P. Case No. 984 of 2011 has

acquitted the opposite party no. 2 from the charges punishable

under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and thereafter vide order dated

07.04.2018, the Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2017 preferred by the

petitioner has been dismissed by giving liberty to the petitioner to

file appeal after obtaining leave from the High Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) through his legal representatives

Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752

and in the case of Joseph Stephen and Ors. Vs. Santhanasamy

and Ors. reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 83 and as such, this

Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

4. The learned A.P.P. has submitted to pass the recovery

order.

5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer

and has submitted that impugned order passed by the learned

Court below is sustainable in the eye of law and no interference is

required by this Court and this Criminal Revision Application may

be fit to be dismissed.

6.

Perused the records of the case and considered the

submission made by parties and the judgment rendered by the

Hon’ble Supreme Courts.

7.

Under the circumstances and in view of the, judgment

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) through his legal representatives

Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752

and in the case of Joseph Stephen and Ors. Vs. Santhanasamy

and Ors. reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 83, the order dated

07.04.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2017 by the

learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad is set aside and the matter is

remitted back to the learned Court below to consider the appeal

afresh in accordance with law.

8.

Accordingly, this Cr. Revision No. 831 of 2018 is allowed

and stands disposed of.

Kamlesh/

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)