Jharkhand High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 28 To September 3, 2023

Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS) vs Ranjan Kumar Singh and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 32

M/s A.M. Enterprises and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 33

Pralay Pal vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 34

Abhay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 35

Pradeep Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 36

Judgements/Orders This Week

Cancellation Of Entire Selection Process Unjustified If Irregularities Curable: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS) vs Ranjan Kumar Singh and Others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 32

The Jharkhand High Court has recently issued a comprehensive list of directions regarding a contentious recruitment process at the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS). The division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar thereby modified the Single Judge’s verdict and opined that scrapping the recruitment advertisement or the entire selection process for Grade-IV posts would unfairly penalise genuine candidates.

Jharkhand High Court Quashes Proceedings U/S 276B Against The Petitioner Who Failed To Deposit The TDS Amount

Case Title: M/s A.M. Enterprises and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 33

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against a petitioner who had been facing charges under Sections 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's firm had allegedly failed to deposit the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amount with the Income Tax Department in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The petitioner had filed a plea seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that his firm had been unaware of the TDS requirement for the last quarter of the fiscal year.

Income Tax Act | Annulled Penalty Order Implies Absence Of Concealment, S.276C Proceedings Automatically Quashed: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Pralay Pal vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 34

The Jharkhand High Court has recently held that when a penalty order is set aside, it implies the absence of concealment of income, leading to the automatic quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi added that quashing the penalty order undermines the foundational basis for the criminal case, as criminal intent was deemed absent due to the annulment of the penalty proceedings.

Police Cannot Seize Immovable Property U/S 102 CrPC Without Court Order: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Abhay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 35

The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the police cannot seize immovable property under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) without an order from a competent court of law. Relying on Nevada Properties Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi ordered to unseal the premises of a factory owned by the petitioner who was accused of engaging in illegal coal trade.

'Sufficient Grounds To Proceed Trial': Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Discharge Congress MLA Pradeep Yadav In Sexual Harassment Case

Case Title: Pradeep Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 36

The Jharkhand High Court on Friday dismissed the criminal revision petition moved by Congress MLA Pradeep Yadav, who had sought the dismissal of a sexual harassment case brought against him by a woman. Yadav had challenged an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Dumka refusing to discharge him.

The bench of Justice Subhash Chand opined that the victim's reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR were well-founded, as she had been continuously subjected to criminal intimidation by Yadav, and his associates. It held, "In view of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the cumulative evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation i.e., oral as well as documentary and the settled propositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, there are sufficient grounds to proceed trial against the accused. As such, the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2022 passed by the court below rejecting the discharge application needs no interference."