Teju Manjhi @ Teju Hansda vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter at sl. no. 9(i) is that the name of the appellant has

wrongly spelt as Teju Manjhi instead of Tejo Manjhi.

Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha the Learned counsel for the appellant personally undertakes to remove the defect within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the appellant, defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter at sl. no. 9(i) is ignored

for the present.

This appeal will be heard.

Admit.

Call for the Lower Court Records.

List this appeal for hearing after receipt of the Lower Court Records.

Though on the cover of the file, an impression by rubber stamp has been put, indicative of the fact that the file has been scanned by M/s ICONMA on

05.08.2020 but the scanned copy/ soft copy/digital copy of the case record or even any part of it has not been provided to the Court Master of this

Bench; in violation of the direction for supplying the same. It is reported that out of 39 cases listed before this Bench today in the cause list, only in 24

cases, the soft copy/scanned copy/digital copy of the record has been provided to the Court Master of this Bench. In six others cases, which appear at

sl. no. 3, 6, 7, 8, 32, 33 of the cause list of this Bench for today, though on the cover of the files, impression by rubber stamp of M/s ICONMA has

been put yet the soft copy/scanned copy/digital copy of the said case records have not been provided to the Court Master of this Bench. It is pertinent

to mention here that a company namely M/s ICONMA has been engaged by this Court for digitization of the case records, which process includes

scanning of the case records and keeping the data in digital mode in the server provided by this court for its retrieval as and when required with other

ancillary works. Putting the impression M/s ICONMA by the rubber stamp on any file is indicative of the fact that the contents of the file has been

scanned and M/s ICONMA has either been paid the cost of the scanning or it will claim payment for the same at a later date. If the records of the

cases appearing at sl. no. 3, 6, 7, 8, 32, 33 of the cause list of this Bench for today have in fact been scanned by M/s ICONMA, the soft copy/scanned

copy/digital copy of the same must have been with it and there would not have been any difficulty in supplying the same to the Court Master of this

Bench.

Therefore the Registrar General of this court is directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report containing the following information.

As to whether the soft copy/scanned copy/digital copy of the records of the cases at sl. no. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 32, 33 of cause list of this Bench for today

is available with M/s ICONMA and /or the dedicated server of this court for digitisation?

Whether the said company M/s ICONMA has received payment for scanning the records of the cases at sl. no. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 32, 33 of cause list of

this Bench for today from this Court?

Why the soft copy/scanned copy/digital copy of the said records of the cases at sl. no. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 32, 33 of cause list of this Bench for today, have

not been provided to the Court Master of this Bench?

The report is to be submitted within two weeks. The Registrar General of this court is further directed not to make any payment to M/s ICONMA till

the issue is resolved. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the Registrar General of this Court for compliance.

List this appeal after receipt of the report of the Registrar General.

I.A. No. 4208 of 2020 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for confirmation of the

provisional bail granted to the appellant by the trial court after his conviction till 09.08.2020. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant

that all the interim orders passed by various courts of the State has been extended vide order dated 31.07.2020 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 117 of

2020 with other cases. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the said provisional bail granted to the appellant be confirmed.

Considering facts of the case, the provisional bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 10.07.2020 in connection with Special (Vigilance) Case No.

16/10 is confirmed till disposal of the appeal with the condition that the appellant will co-operate with the hearing of the appeal.

This interlocutory application stands allowed.