w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Vinod Kumar Singh v/s State Of Bihar

    Criminal Miscellaneous No.20052 OF 1998

    Decided On, 01 April 2010

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR

    For the Appearing Parties: Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate.



Judgment Text

RAKESH KUMAR,J.

(1.) No one appears on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or even to make a prayer for adjournment.

(2.) The sole petitioner, in the present case, has challenged the order

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

dated 19.1.1998 passed by Sri A.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in G.R. No.3826 of 1997 arising out of S.K.Puri P.S. Case No.145 of 1997. By the said order the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under sections 489B, 489C and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In the present case, the allegation is that the petitioner was intercepted by the police patrolling party in the night. On search, from the possession of the petitioner, two currency notes of Kuwait government were recovered. On interrogation, the petitioner disclosed that he had received such currency notes from one Om Singh. Immediately, thereafter, a raid was conducted on the address furnished by the petitioner and from the possession of the co-accused Om Singh several other such notes were recovered and thereafter first information report was lodged. After registering the case, the police investigated the same and charge sheet was submitted against this petitioner and one another in the month of January, 1998. However, while submitting charge sheet, the police kept further investigation open against other accused persons. After submission of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 19.1.1998 took cognizance of the offence as mentioned above. After order of cognizance the petitioner rushed to this court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. This court by an order dated 28.1.19998, while admitting the case, directed that during pendency of the application further proceeding so far as petitioner is concerned, shall remain stayed and operation of stay is still continuing.

(4.) I have examined the impugned order as well as the materials available on record. I do not find any error in the order of cognizance. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay dated 28.1999 stands automatically vacated.

(5.) Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith
O R