Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1101 (PAT)

Uday Kumar Karhari v. State Of Bihar

2009-08-18

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. 11, Patna, in Cr.Revision No. 683 of 2007 by which the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 3.10.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Special Case No. 6 of 2007 was rejected. The learned Magistrate by the said order had refused to release Truck bearing registration No. BR-1AD-9711 of which the petitioner claims to be the owner on the ground that investigation against some of the accused was still going on and although a report was called for regarding initiation of a confiscation proceeding from the office of the Collector, there had been no reply thereto. 2. The prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. is that on Truck bearing registration No. BR-1 AD-9711, 37 domestic gas cylinders were being carried from Patna to Masaurhi allegedly for selling in the black market. The truck was seized and the present case was accordingly registered under Section 414, IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "E.G. Act"). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the truck in question. His truck is a public carrier vehicle. He is not concerned with the cylinders found loaded on his truck. He is not a business man. His truck was hired by others. He further submitted that he will abide with all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court and he will cooperate in the criminal case as also the confiscation proceeding. He further submitted that the truck in question has been kept in police station premises under open sky and it is deteriorating day by day. It is causing an irreparable loss and injury. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the truck in question under seizure. He is ready to furnish security for release of the truck and further he will abide with the orders passed by the Collector if the confiscation proceeding. It is causing an irreparable loss and injury. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the truck in question under seizure. He is ready to furnish security for release of the truck and further he will abide with the orders passed by the Collector if the confiscation proceeding. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in 2003 (4) PLJR 244 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court was of the view that keeping the public carrier vehicles under seizure is not in the interest of the society and it causes an irreparable loss and injury to the owner of the vehicle. 4. Counsel for the State opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and sought to justify the impugned orders. 5. After hearing counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the truck in question under seizure during the pendency of the criminal case and/or the confiscation proceeding. The principle of Supreme Court judgment also applies in the present case. Therefore, 1 hereby direct the Collector, Patna, to release Truck No. BR-1AD-9711 to the petitioner on being satisfied that the petitioner is the owner and on undertaking that the petitioner shall not sell, transfer, hypothecate etc. the truck in question and he will produce the truck as and when order of the same is passed by the learned Collector. The learned Collector shall release the truck on petitioners furnishing sufficient security other than cash or Bank guarantee to his satisfaction in Special Case No. 6 of 2007. The release will be subject to result of the criminal case and/or confiscation proceeding, if any, initiated before the Collector. 6. The application is accordingly disposed of in terms of the observations and directions made in the foregoing paragraphs.