RAJU MEHTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the entire criminal proceeding of Koderma P.S case no.449 of 2002 including the order taking cognizance has been challenged but basically the orders under which warrant of arrest bailable, non -bailable, and the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been issued, are under challenge. It was further submitted that a case was registered as Koderma P.S case no.449 of 2002 under Section 395/364(A) of the Indian Penal Code against unknown. Subsequently, in course of investigation, one Sadanand Mehta was apprehended, who confessed his guilt and also disclosed about the complicity of this petitioner and other accused persons in the alleged offence. However, the charge sheet was submitted against him but not against this petitioner. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was submitted against this petitioner, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken on 17.12.2008. Thereupon summon was ordered to be issued on 26.4.2011 and then without there being any service of summons, warrant of arrest bailable was ordered to be issued on 26.4.2011 and then non -bailable was ordered to be issued on 3.5.2012. Further without having any report relating to execution of warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was ordered to be issued on 13.8.2012 and therefore, the aforesaid orders be quashed as the same have never been passed in accordance with law and at the same time, the order taking cognizance be quashed as no legal evidence is there against the petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence.

(3.) HOWEVER , sufficiency or insufficiency of the matter be raised on behalf of the petitioner at the time of discharge.