Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1329 (ALL)

ANSHU @ DILIP KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-04-26

YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.—This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 27.1.2010 passed by ACJM, Anoopshahar, district Bulandsahar and charge-sheet submitted in the trial Court in Case Crime No. 422 of 2009 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Dibai, district Bulandsahar and also prayed to pass an appropriate order for releasing the Wheat seized by the authorities in favour of the applicants against the deposit the appropriate wheat amount subject to the decision of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. As per prosecution case, on the information of the informant a Raid was arranged by the authorities of the State Government in company of the Police Persons and they found that on the Road in front of the Bus Stand, two vehicles Tractor Trolly and Mini Truck loaded with Bags were standing there. Informant towards that and moved the place. Both the vehicles were checked. In the Mini Truck No. UP81 Y9804, two persons Shashi Kumar and Ompal were sitting and on inquiry they gave their names and addresses. On further inquiry, they stated that Bags containing Wheat are loaded in the Truck but they failed to give the detail, to whom these Bags belong. 11 Bags containing Wheat were there and on the Bags APL mark (above poverty line) was affixed which was a Government property. On the other Vehicle i.e. Tractor Trolly, two other persons Manoj Kumar and Anshu were seated and they also given their names and addresses and on inquiry they stated that Wheat is there in the Bags loaded in the Trolly. These bags were in No. 157 and on the bags mark APL as above was affixed showing that those were also Government Property. All the four persons failed to give detail from where they bring the Wheat. They were taken into custody the vehicles and Wheat bags were seized and brought at Mandi, Dibai where the Wheat was given in the Supurdagi of Incharge of Mandi Samiti and memo was prepared accordingly. Accused and vehicle brought at police station and report was lodged against them. Accused persons get them released on bail. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them for their trial. 4. Accused and vehicle brought at police station and report was lodged against them. Accused persons get them released on bail. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them for their trial. 4. Three separate applications were moved by Anshu alias Dilip Kumar, Dhan Singh and Mahendra Singh claiming that Wheat belongs to them and prayed to release the Wheat in their favour. Anshu claimed 16 bags his own and Dhan Singh claimed 67 Bags and rest bags were said by the applicant Mahendra Singh. After giving opportunity of hearing, all the three applicants’ applications were rejected by trial Court. Aggrieved by these orders, this application has been filed by all the three applicants. 5. Record shows that copy of the application of the applicant Anshu alias Dilip Kumar moved before the trial Court is annexed at Page 15 and 16 while copy of the application of Dhan Singh is at Page 17 and 18. Copy of the application moved on behalf of Mahendra Singh was not filed to the reason best known to the applicants. Copy of the order passed on the application of Mahendra by the trial Court is at Page 19 and 20 and 21A(certified copies) while copy of the order passed on the application of Anshu is at page No. 21 B and 21 C (certified copy) and photocopy at Page 21. Copy of the order rejecting the application of Dhan Singh has not been filed on behalf of the applicants. This shows that to the reason best known to the applicants required papers of decided case were not filed on the record. 6. How the investigation was completed and what were the statements of the witnesses under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. are also not made available on behalf of the applicants. It is also not clear from the record that when the applications for release of the case property were rejected by the trial Court, why the Appeal /Revision was not filed before the appropriate authorities /Court and why directly the applicants have approached this Court by the present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants during the course of arguments has also not pressed the prayer to quash the charge-sheet. He argued that without giving sufficient reasons, arbitrarily, learned trial Court has rejected the applications of the applicants to release the Wheat in their favour. Learned counsel for the applicants during the course of arguments has also not pressed the prayer to quash the charge-sheet. He argued that without giving sufficient reasons, arbitrarily, learned trial Court has rejected the applications of the applicants to release the Wheat in their favour. It was further argued that Wheat was a perishable commodity and it was the duty of the trial Court that if the Court was not intending to release the Wheat in their favour at least, some arrangements should have been made so that seized commodity could not be damaged due to lapse of time. Learned AGA argued that Wheat recovered was seized taking that it was the Government property and applicants were not authorized for its possession without any license or authority. They failed to give any sufficient explanation how and why this Government property was in their possession and under what authority, they were keeping it. However, learned AGA conceded that learned trial Court should have made some order to avoid the damage of the commodity due to lapse of time. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the Wheat was not a Government property. They intending to sell it at market price in the Mandi so the Wheat was being transported on the hired vehicle Mini Truck but due to some mechanical defects, it was not possible that Truck may reach the Mandi. Tractor Trolly was arranged. When the raid was arranged and the Wheat was seized the bags were being loaded in the Tractor Trolly from the Mini Truck to bring the same for the above said purpose. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that Wheat was not filled in the Bags having mark of APL but these were in SADA bags which were purchased by them from the market. Out of the three applicants, only one Anshu alias Dilip Kumar was present when the Wheat was seized. Four persons were arrested by the authorities from the spot. Why Anshu alias Dilip Kumar have not given the above details of ownership to the authorities, it is not sufficiently explained on behalf of the applicants. All the three applicants, claimed that they are agriculturists and the Wheat in the Bags was produced of their fields but no copy of Khasra and Khautani showing their land in the area was filed on behalf of the applicants. All the three applicants, claimed that they are agriculturists and the Wheat in the Bags was produced of their fields but no copy of Khasra and Khautani showing their land in the area was filed on behalf of the applicants. Only Anshu has given some detail and rest of the two applicants have not given any detail of Plot No. of their land, from where they have hired the Mini Truck, who is the owner of the Truck. Similarly, to whom The Tractor Trolly belongs and why this Tractor and Trolly was not having registration number , it is also not explained on behalf of the applicants. When the Tractor Trolly was handed over to the Police at the Police Station, anybody approached to the Court to get released them, it is also not clear from the record and learned counsel for the applicants also could not explain the same during the course of arguments. No receipt of hiring Truck and Tractor Trolly also filed on behalf of the applicants. Mahendra Singh and Dhan Singh are not joined in the charge-sheet as the accused Anshu was charge-sheeted by the Police. How he has claimed his bail in the matter and what was the order of his release on bail, neither copy of the bail application nor the release order has been filed. 9. On behalf of the State authorities it has been claimed that the Wheat belongs to the Government while the applicants are claiming their own. It has to be decided by the evidence to be adduced in this regard, but no such evidence was made available on behalf of the applicants to show that the Wheat contained in the Bags is their own property. 10. In these circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the arguments of parties counsel and facts of the case, if an application of the applicants to release the Wheat in their favour is rejected by the trial Court, there is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the orders. 10. In these circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the arguments of parties counsel and facts of the case, if an application of the applicants to release the Wheat in their favour is rejected by the trial Court, there is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the orders. However, it is correct that Wheat in the Bags is a perishable item and some arrangements should have been made by the trial Court either by selling the same in the open market or by selling the same on the Government shops and the money collected may be deposited in the Court concerned or with the authority concerned, subject to the result of the case but no such arrangements was made neither by the trial Court nor by the authorities who seized the Wheat and kept it in the Go-down of Mandi Samiti. Possibility cannot be ruled out that by lapse of time, it may perish. Learned counsel for the applicant cited law 2003 (46) ACC 223, Sundar Bhai Ambalal v. State of Gujarat and 2008 (1) ADJ 321 , Virendra v. State. Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have given directions about the disposal of such type of items during pendency of the case. It will be appropriate for the trial Court to pass necessary orders in the light of law laid down above by the Courts referred above. Learned Magistrate may also direct the authorities of the district concerned for disposal of the seized Wheat according to law and the price received be deposited in the Court or with some Government authority subject to the result of the matter. Empty bags will be kept in safe custody so that they may be produced in the Court. With the observation made above, the application is disposed of. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for immediate compliance. ————