Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 173 (PAT)

Bansal Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Bihar

1999-03-11

ANIL KUMAR SINHA

body1999
Judgment 1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed to quash the order dated 5.1.1999 passed by the Special Judge, E.C. Act at Saraikela in connection with Adityapur P.S. case No. 228/98 (G.R. case No. 4/98) whereby and whereunder learned Special Judge has purportedly refused to release the 100 bags of wheat and truck bearing registration No. BRS/3579 by reviewing the order dated 24.12.1998. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 11.12.1998 at 10.30 p.m. the Of-ficer-in-Charge of Adityapur police station, on getting some confidential information proceeded towards the factory of Bansal Food Products and he chased the truck bearing No. BRS/3579 at the factory gate (sic) Officer-in-Charge demanded papers in respect of the wheat loaded on the truck from the driver who produced the documents relating to the truck and weighment receipt, but no paper was produced in respect of the wheat loaded on it. The Officer-in-Charge seized the wheat and the truck and arrested the persons from the truck as because bags of wheat was brought in clandestine manner and so after seizing the wheat and truck he instituted a FIR (Annexure-1). Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition for release of the goods and the vehicle in the Court of Special Judge, Saraikela who vide order dated 24.12.1998 was pleased to release 100 bags of wheat and truck in favour of the petitioners on certain conditions (Annexure-2) and release order was also issued by the Special Judge, Saraikela on 24.12.1998 whereby he directed the Officer-in-Charge of Adityapur police station to release 15340 kgs of wheat and truck No. BRS-3579 to the respective petitioners. It has been stated that the petitioners handed over the release order to the Officer-in-Charge of Adityapur police station who received the same but did not grant any receipt. The Officer-in-Charge did not release the goods and vehicle to the petitioners. Since the goods and vehicle were not released by the police, petitioners moved the Court of Special Judge, on 2.1.1999 and prayed to communicate to release order through Special Messenger and accordingly release order was sent to Officer-in-Charge of Adityapur police station through special messenger. The Officer-in-Charge did not release the goods and vehicle to the petitioners. Since the goods and vehicle were not released by the police, petitioners moved the Court of Special Judge, on 2.1.1999 and prayed to communicate to release order through Special Messenger and accordingly release order was sent to Officer-in-Charge of Adityapur police station through special messenger. The Officer-in-Charge of Adityapur police station did not release the goods and truck to the petitioners on the ground that confiscation case bearing No. 5/98-99 was initiated before the Collector, Singhbhum (West) who directed the S.D.O., Saraikela to sell the seized wheat by auction and deposit the money in the treasury The I.O. further made a prayer to the Special Judge, Saraikela that the certified copy of the order dated 24.12.1998 may be issued to him so that review petition may be filed against the impugned order of this Court and learned Special Judge direct the office to issue a copy accordingly On 5.1.1999, the petitioner namely Suresh Kumar Agarwal filed a petition for initiating a contempt proceeding against Officer-in-Charge of Adityapur police station for the disobedience of the courts order. The learned Special Judge heard the parties and passed the impugned order dated 5.1.1999 wherein he has observed that a confiscation proceeding bearing No. 5/98-99 was initiated by the Deputy Commission Singhbhum (West) on 28.12.1998 and Adityapur police had rightly refused to release the wheat to the petitioner in view of the confiscation proceeding with intimation to this Court vide his letter dated 3.1.1999 and accordingly, he disposed of the petition filed for initiating the contempt proceeding against the O/C Adityapur P.S. The learned Special Judge further observed that there was no chit of paper to show that the release order was received by the O/C Adityapur P.S. on 24.12.1998 or thereafter prior to the initiation of the confiscation proceeding by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (West) which was actually initiated on 28.12.1998 and so in that view of the matter also, the learned Special Judge did not find force in the petition filed on behalf of Suresh Kumar Agarwal for initiating the contempt proceeding. 3. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted before me that the learned Special Judge passed the order to release the goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioners on 24.12.1998 and on that date no confiscation proceeding was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (West) which was actually initiated on 28.12.1998 and as such the order passed by the learned Special Judge releasing the goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioners was perfectly justified and legal order since the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (West) was not seized with the matter and the Special Judge had the authority/jurisdiction for entertaining the release matter under Section 457 of the Cr PC and the order dated 24.12.1998 passed by him whereby he released the goods and truck in favour of the petitioner was perfectly justified and legal order and on that date, he was not lacking in jurisdiction and the order passed by him cannot be re-called or reviewed by him inasmuch as learned Special Judge had no authority to sit over his own order. Learned Counsel has filed the order dated 24.10.1997 passed in Cr W.J.C. No. 165 of 1997 at this Court wherein his Lordship held that "release order which had been made earlier by the order dated 3.3.1997 shall be maintained, subject to the result of the confiscation case". In that case also, the matter was similar to the facts of the present case because a truck was released by the Special Tudge on 3.3.1997 under Section 457 of the Cr PC, and after such release confiscation case was registered under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act and after the initiation of the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act, a prayer was made before the Special Judge to re-call earlier order of release of goods and truck in favour of the petitioners. As such, it would appear that the case before his Lordship in Cr WJC No. 165/97(R) is similar to the present case. 4. In the above circumstances, I am also of the view that the release order passed by the leaned Special Judge vide order dated 24.12.1998 whereby he released the wheat and truck in favour of the petitioners shall be maintained subject to the result of the confiscation case. According this application is disposed of.