- (1.) Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 860 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), has been rejected.
(2.) At the instance of respondent no.2 Wakil Paswan, a complaint case was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against the petitioner and one D.B.Raman, Manager of TISCO, Jamadoba Colliery, District- Dhanbad with the allegation that the accused D.B.Raman all the time had been pressurising him to do menial works at his residence, which was protested by the complainant as a result of which, he was insulted in public by using and naming his caste " Sala Dusadh why do not you agree to sweep "and also harassed the complainant in various ways and on 18.04.2000 when the complainant entered into the chamber of accused D.B. Raman, this petitioner, who is also posted as Colliery Manager along with D.B.Raman in the same Jamadoba Colliery, was also sitting there, whereafter he submitted his application for casual leave on account of marriage of his sister , but D.B.Raman became furious and threw his application and abused him by saying " Sale Harijan Yahan Se Bhago" and when this complainant opposed then this petitioner and D.B.Raman both assaulted him and pushed him outside the office before other employees and abused him again by naming his caste. On the above allegation, the aforesaid case was filed showing commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 384 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3(1) and (2) (vii) of Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After the examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation and three other witnesses namely Anil Bhagti, Ram Prasad and Krishna Mandal, the Chief judicial Magistrate not being satisfied with the allegation made against the accused dismissed the complainant by order dated 01.03.2001.
(3.) The complainant being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad bearing Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2001, who after hearing the parties found a prima facie case against the accused and, accordingly, set aside the order dated 01.03.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and remanded the matter back to the court for reviewing the same afresh after going into the evidence on record and relevant provisions of law. The petitioner along with co-accused D.B.Raman preferred a revision before the Hon'ble High Court against the said order dated 27.09.2001 and assailed that the order passed by the revisional court is bad in law as the court has given direction to review the same afresh though in the entire Criminal Procedure Code, there is no provision for review of an order. This Hon'ble Court by order dated 26.04.2002 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 5104 of 2001 clarified that the directions issued by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision was in fact a direction for further enquiry to be conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and not for reviewing its earlier order. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the depositions of the complainant as also of the witnesses afresh and found a prima facie case against the accused persons including this petitioner and, accordingly, directed to issue summons. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order again preferred a revision before Additional Sessions Judge, but the same was dismissed holding that the materials on record before the court did make out a prima facie case against the accused persons and there was no legal infirmity in the order directing issue of summons to the accused persons. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code before this Court but the same was also dismissed. The petitioner against the order of dismissal of the High Court preferred Criminal Appeal bearing no. 1153 of 2004 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by order 22nd October ,2010 holding as follows:- "A plain reading of the complaint filed by the complainant in the instant case makes out a case against the accused. Not only that the depositions of the three witnesses examined by the complainant in support of his complaint also support the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate was, therefore, justified in taking cognizance against the appellant and the coaccused. The revisional Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, was also correct in holding that a case for issue of process has been made out. Such being the position the High Court committed no error in declining to interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. nor is there any reason for us much less a compelling one to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court." Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, question was also raised that after remand, the Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant and other witnesses afresh, which was beyond his jurisdiction but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above order further held as follows:- "In as much as the Magistrate in the instant case summoned the witnesses and examined them afresh, he may have gone beyond what was legally necessary to do but that is no reason to hold that the recording of evidence by the Magistrate as a part of the further enquiry directed by the High Court would vitiate the proceedings before him or the conclusion drawn on the basis of any such enquiry. So long as the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima faice case had been made out, he was competent to issue summons to the accused." It further appears from the record that as the matter was triable by a Court of Sessions Judge as envisaged in the Act, the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- I- cumSpecial Judge, Dhanbad and before that Court, the petitioner filed a petition for discharge under Section 227 of the Code but the said court by the impugned order dated 05.02.2014 dismissed the petition holding as follows:- "From perusal of record, it appears that there is direct allegation against the co-accused. So far this petitioner is concerned, there is composite allegation against him. It is true the petitioner is working in M/s. Tata Steel Limited. It is a private company, therefore Section 3(2) (vii) of the Act cannot be applicable but so far as the rest of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) and (X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are concerned, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is prima facie sufficient materials against this petitioner for framing of charge." Hence this revision.;