PRATIK SARKAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 12.6.2007, passed by Shri Vishal Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder, discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected with a direction to the petitioners to stand charge under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.

(2.) PROSECUTION story, in short, was that the police party, on tip off, headed by a police officer of the rank of D.S.P. intercepted a Mahindra Jeep bearing No. JH 10B 7373 on 05.12.2003 and apprehended the petitioners (1) Pratik Sarkar (2) M.B. Suresh and (3) Jitendra Laxman Thorve. When called upon, all the three petitioners narrated that construction work of G.T. Road was undertaken by their Company H.C.C. and a few days ago, some employees of Hindustan Construction Company were abducted by the terrorist organization M.C.C.I. The abducted persons were rescued on the quick action of the police and only thereafter M.C.C.I. people started demanding levy from H.C.C. by extending threat that their employees otherwise would be killed. It was specifically alleged against the Commander Nripendra Ganjhu of M.C.C.I. of demanding levy and when the Company refused to make good of their demand, construction work of road was stopped. There was no way out accept to meet out their demands in view of the pressure of the Government to complete the work and pursuant to that it was alleged that the petitioners confessed having carried Rs. 20,00,000/ - (Twenty lakhs) and with the help of the accused Duryodhan Mahto, a cadre of M.C.C.I. the amount was delivered to one Dilo Mahto of village Tutki for its onward transmission to the Commander Nripendra Ganjhu. It was further confessed that after delivery of the said amount they were intercepted by police while returning on jeep. Pursuant to the confession of the petitioners, on the self statement of the informant officer -in -charge of Hazaribagh (M) police station, Churchu P.S. Case No. 10 of 2003 was instituted against all the petitioners for the offence under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.

(3.) MR . Ranjeet Kumar, learned Sr. Counsel, submitted that petitioners had preferred petition for their discharge on the ground that under given circumstances, no offence under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 was made out against any of them but their petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Court -below upon erroneous consideration and to quote, I have perused the case diary and find that according to para 14, in Tulki jungle at Narkandu in an encounter Nripendra Ganjhu was killed by police and rupees twenty lakhs, arms and other articles were recovered. So the above facts and circumstances show that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed the offence and charge must not be considered to be groundless because petitioners disclosed that M.C.C.I. compelled the Company to stop the work and as such they had gone to give money and they went with one Duryodhan Mahto of M.C.C. and gave Rs. 20,00,000/ - to one Dilo Mahto of village Tulki. From where money was supposed to be given to one Nripendra Ganjhu, while returning they were apprehended and in an encounter with police in Tulki jungle Nripendra Ganjhu was killed and twenty lakh rupees were recovered. So there is ground for presuming that petitioners have committed the offence.