RAJESH MEHTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 20.03.2015 and 16.06.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the proclamation and Process for attachment of property have been issued against the petitioner under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') respectively in connection with G.R. Case No. 2431 of 2013 arising out of Pandwa P.S. Case No. 60 of 2013 instituted under Sections 143, 341, 323, 353, 427, 447 and 290 of the I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case, which is based on the self -statement of the informant - the then Officer -in -charge, Pandwa Police Station, in short, is that on 21.12.2013 at about 22:30 hours, after receiving information that there is a blocked at NH -75 due to some differences occurred between the workers of Usha Martin and villagers, the informant reached there and saw that the petitioner along with other accused persons were leading the mob of 150 -200 persons and blocked the NH -75. The members of the mob damaged the glasses of the Dumper of Usha Martin. The coal loaded on the dumber were found to be scattered there. Anyhow, the blocked could be removed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Ms. Niki Sinha appearing for the petitioner assailing the orders of the court below seriously contended that without applying the judicial mind, the court below in a mechanical manner issued the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code and the order of attachment of property of the petitioner under Section 83 of the Code without declaring him absconder. It was also submitted that on mere perusal of the order sheets enclosed with the writ application, it would appear that there is no order -sheet on record showing any warrant of arrest ever issued by the court and even if it was issued, there is no whisper in the order sheet and the subsequent orders, as such the orders of issuance of Proclamation and attachment are non -speaking and liable to be quashed in the light of the mandates given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and another; : (2011) 4 JLJR 385 (SC).