RAVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-1979-3-16
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on March 28,1979

RAVI SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NAND LAL PODDAR V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
UMMAL HASANALB [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
MADHU LIMAYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DAS VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
HELEN RUBBER INDUSTRIES KOTTAYAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VIVEKBHARGAVA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1995-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
DKJHAVER VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1995-5-11] [RELIED ON]
SANDHYA GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-182] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTUNU DAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1999-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT BOSE ALIAS SUMIT RANJAN BOSE VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2002-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR MODI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2006-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
S.C. JAIN VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(PAT)-1983-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY MOHAN PRASAD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-4-27] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Muneshwari Sahay, J. - (1.)This application is directed against an order dated 16.8.1976 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, by which the learned Magistrate dismissed a petition of the petitioners filed under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code') and ordered issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 1 is one Ravi Singh, Mine Manager, Pipradih Limestone Mine and petitioner no. 2 is M/s Parshva Properties Limited, owner of the aforesaid mine. The facts leading to the impugned order are shortly these:-
(2.)On 19.4.1978, the Labour Reforcement Officer (Central), Dehri-on- Sone filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners under Rule 22 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules) for the contravention of the rules 5, 5-A 17 (1), 8 (1) (i) of the aforesaid Rules. It is not necessary to state the actual contravention made by . the petitioners and suffice it to point out that some of the contraventions were punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 200 and others were punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500 only. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram took cognizance on the complaint and transferred the same to the court of Sri N. K. Singh, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, for disposal. When the record was received in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate the learned Magistrate recorded an order dated 24.5.1974 fixing 15.7.1978 for issuance of summons against the accused. On 15.7.1978, a petition was filcd belore the learned Magistrate by the petitioners under section 205 of the "Code. The petitioners stated in the petition that Adishwar Prasad, Commercial Manager-cum-Superintendent, who represented the petitioner no 2 had to represent the Company at various places, such as Calcutta, Dhanbad and Patna. As regards the Mine Manager, Sri Ravi Singh, it was that he was in charge of the entire mines operation at Pipradih and that his frequent absence from the mine was likely to affect the mining operation adversely. The petitoners also stated that the offences alleged against them were of patty and trivial nature ; that the petitioners' lawyers were prepared to represent them in court and, therefore, they may be allowed to be represented through the lawyers. The petitioners in the same petition undertook to appear before the learned Magistrate, if and when so directed by him. The learned Magistrate fixed 18.7.1978 for hearing of the petition. For some reason which is not clear, the petition was not heard on 18.7.1978 and next date fixed in the ease was 16.8.1978. On that date the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order which is as follows :-
"A petition under section 205, Criminal Procedure Code on behalf of accused Ravi Singh, dated 15.7.78 was moved. Heard. From perusal of the record it appears that in this case summons to the accused has already been issued on 3.8.78 as per order sheet, dated 25.5.78. Therefore, this petition under section 205, Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable as it can be filed only at the time when summons has not been issued and admittedly it has been filed after that. Moreover, there is no any valid and sufficient ground mentioned in the petition to bring him under the purview of the provisions mentioned under the Criminal Procedure Code. The only ground mentioned in the petition is that the petitioner is overbusy. That is not the sufficient ground. Hence in view of my observation made above, the petition, as mentioned above, is hereby rejected. As the accused has knowledge of the issue of summons as mentioned in his petition dated 15.7.78 and even then he has not appeared. Hence, issue W/A non-bailable against the accused person. To 26.8.78 for appearance."

(3.)Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Magistrate was in error in supposing that the petitioners could not be given protection of section 205 of the Code and that no ground has been made out by the petitioners for granting the relief prayed for by them. Learned Counsel contends further that the order of issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest was patently illegal and gross abuse of the process of the Court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.