Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 630 (JHR)

Suresh Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-11

DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2011
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order impugned dated 12.08.2010 passed by the C.J.M., Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 2315 of 2010, arising out of Giddi P.S. Case No. 82 of 2010 for the alleged offence under Sections 414/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 33 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 13(ii) of the Coal Mines Act and Section 4(1), 4(1A) of the M.M.R.D. Act against the Petitioners. 2. Learned Counsel Mr. Sahani Submitted that by the impugned order, learned C.J.M. had directed for the release of all the seven trucks viz. registration No. JH02K-9574, No. JH02K-5872, No. JH02M-9822, No. JH02K9774, No. JHO2L-1527, No. JH02J-6112 and No. JH02M-7208 to the respective owners/Petitioners herein on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 7,000/- (Seven thousand) with one surety of like amount each to his satisfaction. 3. The prosecution story in short was that all the above trucks were intercepted by the police, which was found engaged in loading coal illegally and at the sight of the police party, the miscreants started fleeing away but on chase one Prem Nath Mahto was apprehended, who disclosed the complicity of the accused persons. The trucks aforesaid and the coal were seized from different places. It was alleged that about 15 bags of coal were found loaded on the truck vide registration No. JH02L1527 and other six trucks were empty. On pointing out by the co-accused Prem Nath Mahto six tones of coal were seized from near by his house. 4. The trucks aforesaid and the coal were seized from different places. It was alleged that about 15 bags of coal were found loaded on the truck vide registration No. JH02L1527 and other six trucks were empty. On pointing out by the co-accused Prem Nath Mahto six tones of coal were seized from near by his house. 4. Appreciating all the material facts on the record and perusal of the seizure list, the learned C.J.M. directed the release of the said trucks by the order dated 12.08.2010 but by the subsequent order dated 13.08, 2010, which was recorded 'later on' the learned C.J.M. refused to release the trucks aforesaid on the communication received from the Court of the Divisional Forest Officer, West-cum-Authorized Officer that a confiscation proceeding was initiated against the said trucks under Section 53(A) of the Indian Forest Act and the learned C.J.M. appreciating the provision of law laid down under the Special Act put all the indemnity bonds filed on behalf of the Petitioners for the release of the respective trucks in abeyance till the disposal of the confiscation proceeding pending before the authorized officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, West Forest Division, Hazaribagh. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Sahani submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not within his competence to recall his own order dated 12.08.2010 by his subsequent order dated 13.08.2010 as discussed hereinabove and therefore, his subsequent order by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate declined to release the trucks was liable to be set aside and the trucks in question might be directed to be released to its respective owners/Petitioners. 6. From perusal of the impugned order dated 13.08.2010, I find that the learned C.J.M. had not recalled his own order but he put his earlier order dated 12.08.2010 in abeyance till the disposal of the proceeding initiated by way of confiscation of the aforesaid trucks under Section 53(A) of the Indian Forest Act subject to the result of the proceeding and I do not find any illegality or irregularity so as to call for interference in the order dated 13.08.2010 in exercise of the inherent power of this Court. 7. There being no merit, this petition is dismissed, however, with the direction to the authorized officer/Divisional Forest Officer, West Forest Division, Hazaribagh to conclude the confiscation proceeding as early as possible preferably within three months in the interest of speedy justice. Petition dismissed.