ISHWAR CHAND JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .A.V. ON: 20/05/2015 PRONOUNCED ON: 16/06/2015 In the present revision application, the two petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case. No. 2121 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for their discharge, has been rejected.

(2.) THE petitioners have been made accused in connection with Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case no. 166 of 2012 instituted under Section 414 of the I.P.C. on the allegation that on a confidential information, when the S.I. of the above Police Station conducted search of the godwon of Annapura Enterprises of the two petitioners, found illegal scrap materials and seized those articles and a seizure list was also prepared. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the cognizance was taken. Whereafter, a petition under Section 239 of the Code was filed for the discharge of the petitioners, but the same was rejected by the court below holding that there is sufficient evidence in the case diary and ample materials on record to frame charge against the petitioners.

(3.) MR . Ananda Sen, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seriously contended that during pendency of the case in the court below, a petition for release of the seized material in favour of the petitioners was filed whereafter a report was called from the Investigating Officer and finding the report in favour of the petitioners, the seized materials were released and that the petitioners were bonfaide purchasers of those seized materials and even they had paid different taxes and their firm Annapurna Enterprises is a registered firm, which carries the business of scrap materials. It was further submitted that the release of the seized materials in favour of the petitioners clearly stipulates that no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 414 of I.P.C. and that the Court below while rejecting the petition for discharge has failed to consider the report of the I.O., which is an unimpeachable document and in catena of decisions, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the unimpeachable documents if filed at the instance of the accused can also be looked into.