DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The complainant opposite party No.2, has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice upon him.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.6.2001 passed by Sri Sitaram Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 82 of 2000, whereby prima facie offence under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been found against the accused persons, including the petitioner, and summons were directed to be issued against them. The petitioner has also challenged the entire criminal proceeding against him in the said compliant case.

(3.) Complaint Case No. 82 of 2000 was filed by the complainant opposite party No.2, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, wherein, the petitioner has also been made accused along with other accused persons. The petitioner has been described as the Managing Director of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation (herein after referred to as the 'Corporation'). According to the complaint case, the complainant was a licensee under the Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 1984, and was carrying out his coal business from his depot, situated at Nawabganj, in Hazaribag. He was entitled to lift the coal from Sikni Coal Mines, situated in the district of Daltonganj, belonging to the Corporation. According to the complainant, he lifted the coal till July 1995 and subsequently, he was stopped from lifting the coal and when he approached the petitioner, who was then working as Chief of Marketing in the Corporation, he was falsely informed that his authorization had been cancelled and he was asked to meet a MLA, who was the nephew of the complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner also instructed his subordinates not to deal with the complainant any more, and no permit be issued to him for lifting of the coal from Sikni Colliery. There is direct allegation against this petitioner to have point blank told the complainant that his authorization was cancelled. Subsequently, the petitioner became the Managing Director of the Corporation and became more powerful and the complainant was not allowed to lift the coal. Sometimes, in January 1998, the complainant was informed that the steam coal was actually being lifted from Sikni colliery by the accused persons on the complainant's authorization and upon verification, the complainant learnt that in between 1.8.1995 to 1.1.1998, steam coal weighing 4178.73 M.T. had been lifted from the said colliery on the authorization of the complainant. The total value of the coal, thus, illegally lifted by the accused persons, came at Rs. 17,84,324.75 piase. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the coal was being lifted under the collusion and connivance of the accused persons, including the petitioner, and they have sold the stock in the open market and converted the same in the valuable security, for which, they did not pay even the commercial taxes and the income tax. It is also stated in the complaint petition that upon coming to know about the illegal lifting of coal, the complainant filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 914 of 1998(R) before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, wherein by order dated 1.4.1999, lifting of the coal on the petitioner's license was stayed. In the said CWJC No. 914 of 1998(R), the accused Nos.1 and 3 appeared through advocate, but the petitioner did not appear. The accused No.1 Bhikku Dutta filed a counter affidavit and admitted that the complainant was a licensee for sale of retail coal, but he falsely claimed to have lifted the coal on the basis of partnership deed between the petitioner and the said accused. The complainant has claimed that the said partnership deed is a forged document, in which his signature was forged for the purpose of cheating. It is also stated that the said CWJC No. 914 of 1998(R) was admitted for hearing and the stay was also lifted so far as the complainant was concerned, and liberty was given to the complainant to lift the coal on his license / authorization, vide order dated 23.12.1990 passed therein. With these allegations and statements, the complaint petition was filed by the complainant.