BINAY KUMAR SINKU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to appear and assist this Court. Permission is accorded.

(2.) Heard learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. case no.864 of 2015 registered under Sections 420, 466, 477(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he being Sub - divisional Officer, Sadar,Ranchi passed back dated order to save himself from the rigor of contempt which was pending before this Court. It has been further stated that there is no mens rea and the petitioner, who was Sub -divisional Officer at that point of time has been punished in a departmental proceeding. He further states that the instant case has been lodged eight years after the order was passed in LPA wherein respondents were directed to take appropriate action against the erring officer, if some illegality or irregularity was committed. He further submits that the complainant is not an aggrieved party and further the contempt was dropped.

(3.) Counsel for the opposite party appears and states that the order has been found to be ante dated which is apparent from enquiry report of the Commissioner itself. He further states that after it was found that the order was ante dated, he was called by the Officer -in -Charge at the instance of the DGP and thereafter he has lodged this FIR. He further states that as the order has been ante dated, this application is liable to be dismissed.