Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1630 (JHR)

Brij Mohan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-08

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by Sri A.K. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribag, in Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 62 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1479 of 2012, whereby application filed by the petitioner for release of the seized truck loaded with coal, has been rejected by the Court below. 3. It appears from the FIR in Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 62 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1479 of 2012 that one truck bearing Registration No. JH 02N-3127 was apprehended loaded with coal. As the truck was found overloaded by 4.18 tones of excess coal, the truck along with the coal was seized and the petitioner being the owner of the truck has been made accused in this case. 4. The petitioner filed his application for release of the coal and truck claiming to be the owner of the truck, but the same was rejected by the Court below earlier, in view of the fact that there was a confiscation proceeding with respect to the truck and coal. It further appears that the said confiscation proceeding has since been dropped by order dated 5.9.2012 passed by the competent authority, in Confiscation Proceeding No. 28 of 2012, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to this revision application, which shows that the competent authority had found that it could not be proved that seized coal belonged to the forest area and as such, no offence was found to have been committed under Sections 33 and 34 of the Forest Act. Accordingly, the confiscation proceeding was dropped. 5. The petitioner again filed his application for release of coal and truck, but the same was also rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 12.9.2012 on the ground that charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and the seized materials are the material exhibits in this case and accordingly, the application was rejected. 6. 5. The petitioner again filed his application for release of coal and truck, but the same was also rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 12.9.2012 on the ground that charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and the seized materials are the material exhibits in this case and accordingly, the application was rejected. 6. In the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the considered view that since the confiscation proceeding has been drooped by the competent authority and the truck being the commercial vehicle, the truck in question with the coal loaded on it ought to have been released by the Court below, if the petitioner was found to be the owner of the truck. 7. Learned counsel or the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to give any undertaking including the undertaking that release of the truck and coal shall not prejudice the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever and such bonds/guarantees/undertakings as may be prescribed by the Court below. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed, for release of truck and coal in favour of the petitioner. 8. However, from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below has not discussed anything regarding the ownership of the petitioner. However, if the seized truck belongs to the petitioner, the Court below shall release of the truck and coal in favour of the petitioner upon taking such undertaking/bonds/guarantees as may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In the facts of the case, the impugned order dated 12.9.2012 passed in Sri A. K. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribag, in Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 62 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1479 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 discussions made above. 10. This revision application stands allowed.