Jagannath Hansda @ Jagannath Manzi .... .... … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Muslim Ansari 3. Arun Kumar 4. Ravindra Kumar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 790 of 2019 Jagannath Hansda @ Jagannath Manzi .... .... …. Appellant ------ Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Muslim Ansari 3. Arun Kumar 4. Ravindra Kumar Gupta .... .... …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Special P.P. : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Appellant For the State For the Respondent No. 2 ------ Order No. 15 Dated : 12.06.2024 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 09.05.2019 passed in C.P. Case No.1046/2016 by Additional Sessions Judge-1st cum Special Judge, Bokaro whereby and whereunder complaint filed by the appellant under Sections 323, 341, 420, 120B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and National Food Security Act, has been dismissed. 2. Complainant is Jagarnath Hansda alias Jagarnath Manjhi and the complaint has been filed against one Muslim Ansari, Arun Kumar (Block Supply Officer, Chandankiyari) and Ravindra Kumar Gupta (Block Development Officer, Chandankiyari) on 06.12.2016. 3. The case of the complainant is that accused no.1-Muslim Ansari was public distribution shop owner and other ration card holders (total 10 in number) were not being supplied food grains as per the standard of National Food Security since 2015. When they complained about this to the Accused No.1 Muslim Ansari, they were abused in public by calling their caste name and threatened to be implicated in false case. It is alleged that since then they have been deliberately deprived of allotted quota of food grains under a conspiracy and the same is being criminally misappropriated by him. 4. The complainant approached the Block Supply Officer on 08.04.2016 and Block Development Officer (accused no.3) on 02.11.2016 and submitted a written complaint. They were called in the office of the Block Development Officer on 23.11.2016, where all the three accused persons were present and asked them to receive the food grains without raising any objection. It is also alleged that they were abused in public by calling their caste name. After this, the present case was filed. 1 5. During Enquiry, the complainant and three witnesses were examined on solemn affirmation. The complaint has been dismissed and aggrieved by the order, instant appeal has been filed. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel that there is specific averment in para 4 of the complaint petition that when the complainant and other witnesses approached the accused persons in their office, they were called by their caste name and abused in public. This has also come in the statement of the complainant and supported by enquiry witness nos.1, 2 and 3. It is argued that the complaint has been dismissed merely on the ground that caste certificate was not produced. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of respondents that the incidence took place as per the allegation, within confines of the office of the Block Development Officer which cannot be said to be in public view. Furthermore, the caste certificate was not produced and the certificate that has been filed along with supplementary affidavit from which it is not clear whether the caste certificate has been issued by the competent authority as the date is missing in the said caste certificate. Reliance is placed in the case Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Versus State of Gujarat & Others, 2024 (1) JLJR 321, para 9 of the judgment is quoted herein below:- “At the outset, we may note that the law is well-settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this court that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 Code of Criminal Procedure should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.” 8. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that appeal was dismissed mainly on the ground that the case related to dispute was essentially about inadequate supply of food articles by the public distribution system owned by accused. Neither in the complaint petition nor in the statement of witnesses, it has been stated as to who were the person or persons who had abused the complainant by calling their caste name. 9. It appears to be implausible that the accused persons could have abused the complainant and 9 others without any protest or demur on their part. As stated by the witnesses, the matter had been reported to the Deputy Commissioner, and still the grievance of inadequate quota could not be redressed. Object of holding enquiry under Chapter XV is not an empty formality, but is a stage to weed out frivolous and false complaints. It has been held in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, (2012) 10 SCC 517 : “20. Section 202 of the Code has twin objects; one, to enable the 2 Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face an unnecessary, frivolous or meritless complaint and the other, to find out whether there is some material to support the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate has a duty to elicit all facts having regard to the interest of an absent accused person and also to bring to book a person or persons against whom the allegations have been made. To find out the above, the Magistrate himself may hold an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer.” Pepsi Food Limited and another Vrs. Special Judicial Magistrates & others 1998 (1) East Cr. C 171 SC --------------- Summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of force. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support the allegation in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable there to. He has to examine the nature of allegation made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinized the evidence brought on record and may himself put questions to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegation or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 10. Keeping these principles of law in mind, this Court is of the view that learned court below did not commit any illegality in dismissing the complaint against the appellants, which included two public servants. Witness no.2 has admitted in their statement that other villagers also received food grains from the shop, but they had not made any complaint regarding it. With regard to non-supply of food grains, they had also not submitted any written complaint to competent authority. Enquiry witness nos.1 & 2 have stated that they did not know the name of the Block Development Officer. Criminal Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Anit (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 3