SUBRATA DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 860 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), has been rejected.

(2.) At the instance of respondent no.2 Wakil Paswan, a complaint case was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against the petitioner and one D.B.Raman, Manager of TISCO, Jamadoba Colliery, District- Dhanbad with the allegation that the accused D.B.Raman all the time had been pressurising him to do menial works at his residence, which was protested by the complainant as a result of which, he was insulted in public by using and naming his caste " Sala Dusadh why do not you agree to sweep "and also harassed the complainant in various ways and on 18.04.2000 when the complainant entered into the chamber of accused D.B.

(3.) The complainant being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad bearing Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2001, who after hearing the parties found a prima facie case against the accused and, accordingly, set aside the order dated 01.03.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and remanded the matter back to the court for reviewing the same afresh after going into the evidence on record and relevant provisions of law. The petitioner along with co-accused D.B.Raman preferred a revision before the Hon'ble High Court against the said order dated 27.09.2001 and assailed that the order passed by the revisional court is bad in law as the court has given direction to review the same afresh though in the entire Criminal Procedure Code, there is no provision for review of an order. This Hon'ble Court by order dated 26.04.2002 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 5104 of 2001 clarified that the directions issued by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision was in fact a direction for further enquiry to be conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and not for reviewing its earlier order. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the depositions of the complainant as also of the witnesses afresh and found a prima facie case against the accused persons including this petitioner and, accordingly, directed to issue summons. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order again preferred a revision before Additional Sessions Judge, but the same was dismissed holding that the materials on record before the court did make out a prima facie case against the accused persons and there was no legal infirmity in the order directing issue of summons to the accused persons. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code before this Court but the same was also dismissed. The petitioner against the order of dismissal of the High Court preferred Criminal Appeal bearing no. 1153 of 2004 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by order 22nd October ,2010 holding as follows:-