Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1260 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-28

PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. It was alleged that 5000 tonnes of steam coal was found stored in the factory premises of M/s. Balaji Minerals and Coke. The petitioner, one of the owner of the said factory and the accused, submitted an application for release of coal before the trial court which was rejected by the trial court and petitioner submitted one writ petition being W.P (Cr.) No.309/2011 for the same prayer which too was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner also submitted one criminal miscellaneous petition being Cr.M.P No.389/2012 for quashing the F.I.R which was dismissed by this Court. 2. Now the petitioner has filed this revision for quashing of the order of the trial court dated 31.5.2011 rejecting his prayer for release of some coal and submitted that after all above orders, the competent Authority in order dated 14.5.2012 dropped the confiscation proceedings. G.R Case No.3767/2010 was registered because of the allegation that the aforesaid coal was stored illegally and the accused committed offence punishable under section 414/120B I.P.C read with section 30(II) of the Coal Mines Act and section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate was of the view that once the petitioner's application for release of coal had been rejected by the High Court, he cannot release the coal. 4. Now in this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the order dated 14th May, 2012, by which confiscation proceeding has been dropped and it has been held that the coal cannot be confiscated for the detailed reasons mentioned in the order. However, it is not in dispute that the criminal case registered against the petitioner under section 414/120B I.P.C is pending before the Judicial Magistrate. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the commodity is not a perishable one and even if the commodity is sold, the petitioner is ready to furnish solvent security for the said commodity. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that the State authorities have already opined not to confiscate the goods, for which they have given detailed reasons and recorded finding that the petitioner is the owner of the property and purchased the coal lawfully and kept it in custody, to which he is entitled to keep. 6. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that the State authorities have already opined not to confiscate the goods, for which they have given detailed reasons and recorded finding that the petitioner is the owner of the property and purchased the coal lawfully and kept it in custody, to which he is entitled to keep. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that confiscation proceeding has been dropped by the order dated 14th May, 2012, criminal case is pending and the commodity will be evidenced in the case. 7. Without commenting on the merit of the case and without commenting on the merit of the finding as recorded by the competent authority in the order dated 14th May, 2012, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the coal, which is found to be 2393.29 MT out of 5000 tonnes, may be released to the petitioner, Manoj Kumar Agarwal, son of Kanhaiyalal Agarwal, on his furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.5 lacs (Rs. five lacs only) before the trial court. Petition allowed.