← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/803/2016dismissed

Jai Shankar Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Road Construction Govt. Of Bihar N

2018-10-03Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.803 of 2016 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 226 of 2014 ====================================================== Jai Shankar Prasad Singh Son of Late Rameshwar Singh resident of Village - Bedhna, P.S. Barh, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, namely Sri Sudhir Kumar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, namely Sri Sudhir Kumar.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. J S Barnwal, GA 5. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 03-10-2018 In view of the order dated 05.05.2015 passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.J.C. No. 226 of 2014 it is for the petitioner to place before the authority concerned as to what happened to the criminal case in which he was an accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner was an accused in the said case but he was unable to show any order discharging the petitioner or acquitting him from the said case. Learned counsel simply submits that despite several efforts taken by the petitioner he is unable to show the order showing such discharge or acquittal.

Patna High Court MJC No.803 of 2016 (4) dt.03-10-2018 2/2 This Court is not satisfied with the kind of explanation being furnished. If the petitioner was admittedly an accused in the said case and he has been discharged or acquitted in the case, he was supposed to be in possession of the order showing such discharge or acquittal from the case. If he is not producing the order of the Court discharging or acquitting him an adverse inference has to be drawn.

This contempt application cannot proceed, it is dismissed.

As and when, the petitioner comes in possession of any such document he will be free to file a fresh contempt application.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) R.R.Ojha.

U