Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1459 (JHR)

Tilu Mahto, Jugal Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-21

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Both these revision applications arise out of the same impugned order and as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, in G.R. Case No. 1564 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for releasing in their favour, the dumpers seized in this case, has been rejected by the Court below, in view of the report of the police objecting the release of the dumpers in favour of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have been made accused in Giddi P.S. Case No. 24 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1564 of 2012, which relates to seizure of four dumpers from the factory premises of Maa Chhinmastika Sponge Iron. Three dumpers were within the factory premises and one dumper was outside the factory premises. All these dumpers were loaded with allegedly stolen coal. Accordingly, the case was instituted against the accused persons, including the owners of the dumpers, for the offence under sections 420, 406, 467, 471, 413, 414, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines Act. 5. The petitioner Jugal Mahto claiming himself to be the owner of the seized dumper bearing registration No. JH-02E-1083 and the petitioner Tilu Mahto claiming himself to be the owner of the seized dumper bearing registration No. JH-02H-8383, filed their applications for release of the dumpers in their favour, which were rejected by the Court below by the order impugned in this case. 6. From the impugned order, it appears that there is no mention therein, about the documents of the ownership of the petitioners with respect to dumpers in question. It is also not apparent from the impugned order whether the documents of the ownership of the petitioners had been verified or not. The impugned order only shows that in view of the report of the police that the case related to a big racket and if the dumpers are released, they may again be used for illegal purpose, the applications filed by the petitioners for release of the dumpers were rejected by the Court below. 7. The impugned order only shows that in view of the report of the police that the case related to a big racket and if the dumpers are released, they may again be used for illegal purpose, the applications filed by the petitioners for release of the dumpers were rejected by the Court below. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the registered owners of the dumpers in question and as such the dumpers, being used for commercial purposes, ought to have been released in favour of the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 9. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I am of the considered view that as the vehicles in question are the commercial vehicles and if they belong to the petitioners, they ought to have been released in favour of the petitioners, upon taking such undertakings/bonds/sureties, as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case by the Court below, including the undertaking that release of the vehicles shall not prejudice the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever. However, the fact remains that the impugned order does not speak anything about the ownership of the petitioners over the seized dumpers. 10. In that view of the matter, the Court below is directed to get the documents of the ownership of the petitioners verified and if the petitioners are found to be the genuine owners of the seized vehicles, the vehicles may be released in favour of the petitioners upon satisfying the conditions as above. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order dated 14.08.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, in G.R. Case No. 1564 of 2012, is hereby, set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh, in accordance with law, and in view of the directions as above. Both these revision applications are accordingly, allowed.