Blog

Interference called under revisional jurisdiction to prevent the miscarriage of justice- Jharkhand high court

A criminal revision petition was directed against the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 135/2012 in which the learned appellate court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial court and dismissed the petitioner’s criminal appeal. The revision petition was heard and the learned court called for interference in the judgment of conviction the petition was heard by a single bench of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of Mahesh Kumar and Ors versus The state of Jharkhand (Cr. Revision No. 763 of 2012)

The background of the case is the petitioner was convicted under section 7 of the essential commodities act by the trial court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that cognizance of the offense was taken under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act but the trial for the offense under Section 414 of IPC was separated and the present case is related to the trial under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. the learned counsel further submits that the punishment is a violation of one or the other Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act but there is no material on record to indicate as to which Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was violated by the accused persons. The counsel further submits that the conditional precedent of 2012 (1) East Cr C 367 (Jhr) in the case of Susharma Singh Munda –vs- State of Jharkhand is not brought on record and therefore the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the respondents did not dispute the fact that the records of the case do not indicate as to which Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 has been violated. And submits that appropriate order can be passed with the material available.

The learned court following the impugned judgments given by the courts below finds that it has not come on record, as to which Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, has been violated by the petitioners calling for their involvement in any offense under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides for penalties for contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the condition precedent for imposition of penalty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has not been satisfied from the side of the prosecution in the present case.

The learned court decides that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and calls for interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this court to prevent the miscarriage of justice and the judgments by the lower courts are set aside.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma