IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.773 of 2009
Kauleshwar Prasad Mahto-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Basant Kumar
3. Sunita Devi
4. Ratnesh Kumar -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Opposite Parties
--------
Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Sinha
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 4: Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate &
Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
--
7/ 23.6.2011
Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 assisted by
Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate.
This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned
dated 30.7.2009, passed in S.T. Case No.372 of 2004 by the 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, by which no clear order
could be passed on the petition filed under Section 319, Code of
Criminal Procedure and following observation was made,
“Under the facts and circumstances discussed above and
keeping in view the natural justice and speedy trial of the case it
appears that on the petition dated 30.4.2009 under Section 319
of the Code of Criminal Procedure order shall be passed at the
time of passing judgment against those accused persons, who
are facing trial from previously.”
Observation made by the learned Trial Judge is silent on the
petition filed under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure as it does
not indicate as to whether petition of the petitioner was allowed or
dismissed and has been put in hanging. The Trial Judge opened his
mind that the final order on the petition under Section 319 would be
passed at the time of passing judgment and in that manner, the Trial
Judge has lost sight that petition in the nature of 319 Code of Criminal
Procedure should have been immediately disposed of without putting in
abeyance.
Learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy, appearing on behalf of the
opposite party Nos.2 to 4, fairly conceded that no final order could be
passed by the Trial Judge either way on the petition filed on behalf of
the petitioner under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure and the
order impugned is not at all maintainable which needs interference of
this Court.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
order impugned dated 30.7.2009, passed by the 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. Case No.372 of 2004 is set
aside with the direction to the Trial Judge to pass order on the petition
filed under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure before
pronouncement of the judgment.
With these observations, this criminal revision is disposed of.
Let the lower court records be returned back forthwith.
(D.K. Sinha, J.)
S.B.