BIRU KUMAR BHUIYAN, SON OF BANWARI BHUIYAN RESIDENT OF AKASH KINORI BASTI, P.S. KATRAS DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the sole petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 286 of 2006 whereby and where under the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code, has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case, which is relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that at the instance of the informant Amitabh Ghosh, site In-charge, Mackintosh Burn Limited, Katras P.S. Case No. 255 of 2005 was instituted under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/325/307/436 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code with the allegation that on 05.10.2005 at about 2.00 p.m. just after regular blasting operation, this petitioner along with almost 200 persons rushed to the patch equipped with Lathi, rod, lethal weapons and started damaging heavy earth moving machines by their weapons without any specific reason and caused damage to the dumpers, generator set, scooter, cycles etc. and also damaged the valuable materials, machineries and official documents etc. and when the informant and other officials protested, U.P. Ray was brutally assaulted by them causing severe head injury and Raghu Reddy got fracture in back bone, leg and hand. They were immediately shifted to the hospitals where the doctors found their condition very serious. Where after the aforesaid case was lodged against the petitioner and nine other named accused persons and almost 200 unknown persons. The police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet where after the cognisance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Before the court of Sessions, a petition under Sec. 227 of the Code was filed at the instance of the present petitioner for his discharge, but the court below finding sufficient materials and evidences available on record and also the prima facie case directed to frame charge against this petitioner and other accused persons, hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Tewari appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law, seriously contended that the court below without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective passed the order impugned without applying judicial mind in a mechanical way. It was also submitted that even the court below failed to consider that the present case was a counter blast of Katras P.S. Case No. 256 of 2005 filed against the present opposite party no. 2 and others of his company and there was absolutely nothing on record to show any overt act or any evidence on complicity of this petitioner in the alleged offence. It was also submitted that even if the entire evidence available on record be taken on its face value, do not constitute any offence against the petitioner.