MD.ESRARUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned S.C. -II for the State.

(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.207 passed by Sri A.K. Mishra -II, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in P.F.A. Case No. 5 of 2005 / T.R. No. 1462 of 2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for discharge, has been rejected by the learned Court below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 16A of the P.F.A. Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C., all the offences under Section 16(1) of the said Act shall be tried in as summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Cr.P.C. shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial. Placing reliance on this section, learned counsel submitted that it was wrongly circulated by the High Court to the Subordinate Courts that the Judicial Magistrates, first Class, and the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrates are empowered to try the cases under the P.F.A. Act, rather, as a matter of fact, there is no Notification of the State Govt. specifically empowering either the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate to try the offence under the said Act. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of Patna High Court in the case of Jagat Narayan Sah and Anr., Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1989 East Cr C 500 (Pat), wherein, it has been laid down as follows: -