Baleshwar Rabidas vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard teamed counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a case was lodged by the informant for commission of offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against two persons including the petitioner. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation, the police did not find culpability against any of the accused persons and therefore, final form was submitted which was accepted by the court vide order dated 25.4.2008.

Being aggrieved with that order, the informant preferred revision application before the Court of Sessions which was heard by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda. The revisional court having set aside the order accepting the final form remanded the matter back for further enquiry. Thereupon, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, vide order dated 21.7.2011 passed in T.R. No. 347 of 2011/P.C.R. Case No. 482 of 2008.

The orders passed by the Magistrate as well as by the revisional court are under challenge.

Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revisional court has passed the order without hearing the petitioner and thereby the order passed by the revisional court and also consequential order passed by the Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda suffer from illegality, in view of the decision rendered in a case of P. Sundarrajan and Others v. R. Vidya Sekar [(2004)13 SCC 472] and also in a case of Mohit alias Sonu and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, .

Admittedly when the final form was submitted against the petitioner, it was accepted. The informant moved before the revisional court against that order and the revisional court set aside the order by which final form had been accepted without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter as valid right had accrued to the petitioner when the court had accepted the final form and thereby the revisional court committed illegality in passing the order without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter. Accordingly, the order dated 4.7.2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gooda in Cr. Rev. No. 39 of 2008/19 of 2008 and also consequential order passed by the Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda on 21.7.2011 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court concerned by deciding the matter afresh after hearing the parties.