Jharkhand High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 30 To November 5, 2023

M/s Amar Saw Mill v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

Devendra Prasad Yadav v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 72

M/s LMB Sons Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 73

M/s Chotanagpur Diocesson Trust Asson. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 74

Case Title: State through informant Sadhu Rai vs Mithu Rai and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 75

Suresh Ram vs. The Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 76

Dr. Kumari Sandhya @ Kumari Sandhya v. State of Jharkhand & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 77

Judgements/Orders This Week

Indian Forest Act | Pending Criminal Case Does Not Halt Forest Authority's Right To Confiscate Wood Logs, Revoke Licenses: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Amar Saw Mill v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

In a recent case where a Writ Petition was filed to challenge the revocation of a sawmill license, the Jharkhand High Court said the competent authority under the Bihar Saw Mills Act, 1990 is empowered to revoke a license and confiscate timber when a licensee is unable to provide a valid explanation for unaccounted wood, even if the licensee is simultaneously facing a criminal case related to the illegal transportation of wood without the required documentation.

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, while placing reliance on the Apex Court’s judgement in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733, reiterated “This Court after applying the said principle herein which is para materia to the confiscation proceeding as available under the Indian Forest Act wherein also apart from the criminal prosecution the power of dealing with the license is also vested as would appear from the provision of Section 52 (5) of the Indian Forest Act.”

Police Must Enquire Into Matter Before Registering FIR Against Public Servant Accused Of Offence Committed In Discharge Of Official Duty: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized the duty of police officers to conduct thorough inquiries before registering First Information Reports (FIR) against public servants accused of offenses committed during the discharge of their official duties.

Justice Subhash Chand held, “Herein it would be pertinent to mention that the accused is a public servant and while lodging F.I.R. against a public servant in regard to commission of any offence during discharge of his official duties, the police officer is duty bound to enquire into the matter before registering the F.I.R. The object behind this is only that there may not be frivolous or harassing allegations against any public servant with any ulterior motive or with any object of extortion.”

Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Termination Of Bank Employee For Mistakenly Crediting Money In Another Account, Says Punishment Too Harsh

Case Title: Devendra Prasad Yadav v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 72

The Jharkhand High Court recently invalidated a 2015 termination order against a bank employee, criticizing the bank's inquiry report as "perverse" due to failure to provide pertinent documents to the petitioner-employee, who was accused of engaging in irregularities at the bank. The court also deemed the punishment of dismissal from service as excessively severe. Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak observed, “Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, it appears that punishment of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate and as such, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside for the following facts and reasons:

(I) Admittedly, non-supply of relevant documents caused serious prejudiced to the petitioner. It has been admitted by respondents that some of the documents were not available with the respondents and as such, the same could not be supplied to the petitioner.

(II) When a particular document was relied upon by the delinquent, the same was to be served to him seeking his reply. In the case of non-supply of the same, the enquiry report would be termed to be perverse.”

CBIC Circulars Are Binding On Service Tax Dept, Violations Will Make Actions Illegal: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s LMB Sons Versus UOI

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 73

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the circulars or instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) are legally binding on the department, and their violation will make the actions of the respondent illegal and ex-facie bad in law.

The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the Department has violated Clauses 14.10 of Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated March 10, 2017, and Clause 4.3 of the Instructions dated November 18, 2021, issued by the CBIC, which provide the manner in which the adjudication order has to be passed by the Respondent Department. Both the Instruction and the Circular provide that the adjudication order must be communicated within one month from the closure of the personal hearing.

Income Tax Dept. Is Duty Bound To Provide All Material Information On Which Reliance Was Placed To The Assessee: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Chotanagpur Diocesson Trust Asson. Versus UOI

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 74

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the Department is duty-bound and is mandatorily required to provide all material information or inquiry conducted on which reliance is being placed, along with supporting documents, to the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that supporting documents have not been provided to the assessee. The department did not provide the details uploaded on the Insight portal, along with the information gathered from the investigation wing and new information uploaded on the Insight portal, to the assessee.

Hearing On Sentence In Death Penalty Cases Must Be Adjourned For Granting Time To Accused To Show Mitigating Factors: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: State through informant Sadhu Rai vs Mithu Rai and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 75

While expressing strong reservations over a POCSO court's hasty 7-days trial, the Jharkhand High Court asserted that in cases where a statute prescribes death penalty as a possible punishment, the court is obliged to postpone any further proceedings related to the sentencing, after clearly informing the accused of their right to present evidence regarding mitigating circumstances. The High Court annulled the death sentence imposed by the POCSO Court and ordered a fresh trial to be conducted by a different judge of competent jurisdiction.

Passenger Hit By Train While Crossing Railway Track In Absence Of Foot-Over Bridge Entitled To Compensation: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Suresh Ram vs. The Union of India

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 76

The Jharkhand High Court has granted a compensation of Rupees Eight Lacs to the family of a woman who lost her life while attempting to cross the railway tracks in the absence of a foot overbridge and proper lighting facilities. While emphasizing on the legal liability of the Railways to provide amenities for safe travel, the High Court set aside the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal that denied compensation to the family of a deceased railway passenger.

Seniority Among RIMS Employees To Be Based On Order Of Merit In Selection: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Dr. Kumari Sandhya @ Kumari Sandhya v. State of Jharkhand & Ors

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 77

The Jharkhand High Court has held that seniority among employees at the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) should be established based on the order of merit at the time of their appointment to the relevant grade.

The Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar added that in this system, individuals selected earlier would be considered senior to those selected later in a given block. The process for creating a seniority list for individuals selected within the same selection committee would involve several specific steps.