Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 964 (JHR)

Surendra Prasad Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-09-20

R.K.MERATHIA, VISHNUDEO NARAYAN

body2004
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APR. 2. This appeal has been preferred by Surendra Prasad Singh. admittedly the owner, of the truck bearing Registration No. BEC 344, for the release of the said truck. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal is that at the relevant time the truck was under the control of accused Dumar Chand Mahto, who was the driver of the said truck and said Dumar Chand Mahto under pressure had to part with the said truck to the terrorist and the said truck was used by them as a carrier for carrying the terrorists to and fro to the place of occurrence. In course of investigation, the said truck was seized and as per seizure list (Annexure-3), seizure was made in front of the house of co-accused Jamir Mian at village- Potdag Barka Bandh, Police Statlon-Nimia where it was stationed. 4. The learned trial Court rejected the prayer for the release of the said truck In favour of the appellant. 5. It is relevant to mention at the veiy outset that this appellant has no connection whatsoever with any terrorist activity or with the offence in question. The truck was admittedly under the control of co-accused Dumar Chand Mahto, who . was employed as a driver by the appellant and Uie said truck was forcibly taken from his custody and had been used for carrying the terrorist to the place of occurrence. 6. It appears from perusal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) that there is no specific provision therein in respect of the release of the articles appertaining to a person not made an accused under the provision of the said Act, which were seized by the terrorist for using the same in the commission. of the offence. However, Section 55 of the said Act mandates that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purpose of any such law as is referred to in sub-section (1), a Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of ordinary criminal justice. In view of the provision aforesaid, we are of the view that general provisions regarding the disposal of property as contained In Chapter-XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure have their application in this case. In view of the provision aforesaid, we are of the view that general provisions regarding the disposal of property as contained In Chapter-XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure have their application in this case. Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to the person to be entitled to the possession thereof on such conditions, if any, as the Magistrate thinks fit. Here in this case, the appellant is admittedly the owner of the truck in question. It is a commercial vehicle. It has been held by the Apex Court in the catena of judicial pronouncements that commercial vehicle should not be unnecessarily detained and it should be released forthwith to the owner. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to detain the said truck till the disposal of the case by the Special Court. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we therefore, allow this appeal. Let the truck bearing Registration No, BEC 344 be released in favour of appellant. Surendra Prasad Singh on his proper identification on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 7,00,000/- (seven lacs) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, POTA. Ranchi In Special Case No. 22 of 2003. 8. The appellant shall produce the truck before the Court below if and when required in connection with the said case.