Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 843 (JHR)

MURLI PRASAD v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2003-07-17

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2003
Judgment : VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the sides. ( 2 ) THIS criminal writ has been filed for issuance of a mandamus upon the respondents to release the truck No. CG-15-ZC-0122 and Truck No. BR- 13-G-0392 seized In connection with Panki P. S. Case No. 1 of 2003 (G. R. Case No. 39 of 2003) along with the coal loaded on that which was also subsequently seized in connection with Panki P. S. Case No. 9 of 2003 on 18-2-2003. ( 3 ) THESE two trucks apparently were loaded with coal and were seized and FIR was lodged as first Panki P. S. Case No. 1 of 2003 and thereafter prayer was made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, palamau at Daltonganj, for release of the trucks as also the coal loaded on those trucks. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 28-1-2003 passed in panki P. S. Case No. 1 of 2003 (supra) directed the release of the truck No 15-ZG- 0122 with coal in favour of the petitioner no. 1 Murli Prasad on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 3,00,000/- within one surety of the like amount each and the truck No. BR- 13-G-0392 in favour of the petitioner No. 2, namely Maksood Alam on furnishing Indemnity bond of Rs. 3,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount each and coal loaded on truck No. BR-13-G-0392 in favour of petitioner no. 3, namely, Abdul Zabbar on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount each. ( 4 ) IT is submitted that the release order dated 28-1 -2003 for releasing the trucks and the coal in question was recevied by the Officer-in-charge, panki police station on 29-1-2003 and on receipt of the release order from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Officer in charge Panki police station did not release the trucks with coal. Thereafter, a show cause which was served upon the concerned officer in charge of panki police station for not complying the courts order. Reply to show cause was filed on 7-2-2003 from the reply it appears that o/c submitted that when verification of the genuineness of the documents was complete, the coal and the trucks shall be released. Thereafter, a show cause which was served upon the concerned officer in charge of panki police station for not complying the courts order. Reply to show cause was filed on 7-2-2003 from the reply it appears that o/c submitted that when verification of the genuineness of the documents was complete, the coal and the trucks shall be released. Then the Court again passed an order for immediate release of the coal and the trucks on 17-2-2003 then on 18-2-2003 as per the respondent No. 3 by Annexure C, the coal and trucks were released and on the same day these were reseized in connection with Panki P. S. Case No. 9 of 2003 on the ground that the coal was being carried out on the basis of false and fabricated receipt of purchase, the place of this new seizure is Thana premises itself, as per the fir of Panki P. S. Case No. 9 of 2003. In this case the FIR was lodged on the basis of the written report of the Officer in charge of panki Police Station on 18-2-2003 itself. With regard to that Annexure C, the petitioners have stated that it was a document obtained subsequently by them. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners is that though sufficient opportunity was given to the Officer in charge of concerned police station for submitting report before the release order was passed but the Officer Incharge did not comply with the order and he seized the two trucks as well as the coal loaded on those trucks, which was subsequently released by Thana Officer, and for the same offence another FIR was lodged on the same day and again seized the trucks as well as the coal. Therefore, a prayer has been made for the release of the coal as well as the trucks. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners in course of argument referred the orders dated 24-1-20003, 25-1-2003 and 28-1-2003 to point out that the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, has already asked for a report from the concerned Officer in charge with regard to release. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners in course of argument referred the orders dated 24-1-20003, 25-1-2003 and 28-1-2003 to point out that the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, has already asked for a report from the concerned Officer in charge with regard to release. On perusal of these orders as contained in Annexure 2 (Order sheet of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate) it transpires that on 24-1-2003 two petitions were filed for release of the trucks as well as the coal and the court had ordered for calling for a report from the Officer in charge of the concerned police station and to put up it on 25-1 -2003 for hearing. In 25-1-2003 these petitions were put up and moved. Again the learned chief Judicial Magistrate recorded that the report called for has not been received. Then he directed that let it be put on 27-1-2003 for hearing (because 26 January 2003 was the holiday ). Then the matter was placed on 28-1-2003. On 27-1-2003 it was recorded that the aforesaid two petitions were put up, none appears to move the same. The case was again adjourned to 28-1-2003 and the release order was passed. From the aforesaid facts it is obvious that there has been a delay on part of the Officer in charge of the concerned police station in complying the order passed by the Court on 28-1-2003, of release of the trucks and coal in connection with Panki P. S. Case No. 1 of 2003 is concerned. The delay has been there on the part of the Officer in charge in compliance of the Courts order. ( 6 ) IT is also apparent from the FIR of panki P. S. Case No. 9 of 2003 itself that it was a delay in compliance of the order of the Court dated 28-1-2003 and subsequent order passed on the submission of the show cause of the Thana officer. ( 7 ) FROM the aforesaid fact it is apparent that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has hurriedly acted in passing the order dated 28-1-2003. ( 7 ) FROM the aforesaid fact it is apparent that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has hurriedly acted in passing the order dated 28-1-2003. No doubt adjournments were granted but the adjournments were so short, of one day and also there is no recording that even the order of the Court calling for the report from the Officer in charge of the concerned, police station was actually served or not and on 28-1-2003 an order of release was passed. Let this matter be placed in administrative side before the honble Chief Justice. ( 8 ) IN the aforesaid circumstance, no doubt that second FIR for the same offence does not appear to be justified it should merge in the first FIR and no prayer has been made in this writ application for quashing the second FIR. The order of release dated 28-1-2003 and subsequent order passed on 17-2-2003 are quashed. The learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Palamu at Daltognganj, is directed to pass a fresh order within a period of seven days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after considering the report of the Officer in charge of Panki Police Station without being prejudiced by this order of the Court passed in this writ. ( 9 ) LET a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj by Fax. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file fresh writ for quashing the second F. I. R. Liberty is given though it may not be necessary as the second F. I. R merges with the first in time in respect of, the same offence. ( 11 ) THIS writ is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .