PRAMOD KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner. The order dated 16.8.1994 passed in 1 C.C. No. 31 of 1995 by the learned J.M.F.C., Kantabanji taking cognizance of offences under Sections 341/323/354/336/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directing issue of Non -Bailable Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner is impugned in this revision.

(2.) IT is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Range Officer, Kantabanji, one Tuna Rana (present informant) on 1st January, 1989 was found removing forest produce and wood from the reserve forest along with his sons. He was caught red -handed by one Biranchi Prasad Mishra, who filed a report before the Tureikela Police Station vide P.S. Case No.1 of 1989. It is submitted that being enraged by the said fact and in order to wriggle out of the aforesaid case, the said Tuna Rana filed an F.I.R. before the O.I.C., Tureikela P.S. under Sections 323/354/379/436/34. I.P.C. against the present petitioner and other foresters. The said F.I.R. was registered as P.S. Case No.2 of 1989. After being satisfied that the allegations levelled were not correct, the police submitted final form. Thereafter, the said Tuna Rana filed a complaint petition in the Court of J.M.F.C., Kantabanji, which was registered as 1 C.C. No.31 of 1989. Paragraph -1 of the aforesaid complaint petition reads as follows : -

(3.) THIS , according to Mr. Nayak, is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is forcefully submitted that as no specific overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner and only he has been arrayed as an accused, the learned Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. It is also submitted that even reading of the first paragraph of the complaint petition reveals that the present petitioner was not an accused, inasmuch as the complainant himself has excluded his presence at the time of occurrence. It is also submitted by Mr Nayak that the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant earlier in the Police Station also does not contain the name of the petitioner and as such, addition of the name of the petitioner in the complaint petition later on as an accused was only to harass him though no allegations have been levelled against him in the body of the complaint petition. Mr. Nayak further strenuously submitted that the learned J.M.F.C. while taking cognizance should have applied his mind in proper perspective and should have taken cognizance of the offences only against the other accused persons, who were alleged to have committed certain overt acts.