Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 261 (JHR)

Aman Ansari v. State of Bihar

2012-02-21

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2012
JUDGMENT D.N. Upadhyay, J. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the F.I.R. in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 157/1997 [G.R. No. 2619/1997] , registered under Sections 414/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts, as it appears from the written report, is that the informant, who happens to be Inspector of C.I.S.F., along with other officers and constables, conducted a raid near Phulwadih Basti. It is alleged that seeing the informant and other C.I.S.F. personnels coming, the persons who were trying to remove Truck No. BRB 7392 which was stuck in mud, fled away. The said Truck was found loaded with 5 Tons of Steam Coal and 7 M.T. of coal was unloaded with a purpose to get the vehicle released from the mud. On verification and interrogation, name of petitioners and other accused indulged in illegal trade of coal, have come in light. No person had appeared to claim either coal or the Truck. Thereafter, the coal and Truck were seized and produced before the Police with a written report on the basis of which Govindpur P.S. Case No. 157/1997 under Sections 414/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners and other accused persons. 4. It is submitted that Sections 11 and 12 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1969 do not give powers to C.I.S.F. Personnel to arrest any person or make search at any place outside the industrial Unit or installation for the safety and safeguard of which they are deputed. In the present case, Truck was seized from G.T. Road which is certainly beyond the premises of any Industrial Unit owned and controlled by State Government or the Central Government. 5. In this context, the learned counsel has relied upon a Judgment reported in Eastern Criminal Cases 1993 Page-469 Patna (Ranchi Bench). By referring the above Judgment, it is pointed out that the search and seizure made by C.I.S.F. Personnel in that very case was found illegal and the coal seized was directed to be released to the petitioner of that case who had claimed the coal. By referring the above Judgment, it is pointed out that the search and seizure made by C.I.S.F. Personnel in that very case was found illegal and the coal seized was directed to be released to the petitioner of that case who had claimed the coal. In that view of the matter, institution of case on the basis of an illegal seizure was unwarranted and the petitioners should not have been made accused on the basis of such information or seizure which was not done in accordance with the law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have vehemently opposed the arguments and submitted that any individual has right to put law in motion by lodging information constituting a cognizable offence. In the instant case, nobody had appeared to claim the coal and vehicle and, therefore, the informant has every reasons to believe that the property was stolen one and being a good citizen, he had reported the matter to the Police. It is not that coal and the Truck were seized by the informant rather the same were produced before the Police for further action and investigation. The facts appearing in the Judgment on which the petitioners are relying upon is quite different. In that very case a Coal Depot was searched and owner of Coal Depot had claimed coal on valid document but in the case in hand nobody was present to claim the coal seized. 7. I have gone through the Judgment cited above, the written report and the production-cum-seizure list and the materials placed before me. Since their Lordships have observed that C.I.S.F. Personnels have no right to make search and seizure beyond the purview of Sections 11 and 12 of C.I.S.F. Act, I do not feel desirable to give a separate opinion at this stage. 8. Be that as it may, the relief which was given to the petitioner in the Judgment cited above was only to the extent of release of coal considering the search and seizure not in accordance with law but the investigation was permitted to be continued. Taking the same view, if the petitioners' claim the coal seized in connection with this case and produce valid documents to the satisfaction of the Court below, that may be released in their favour but so far investigation is concerned, that cannot be stopped and F.I.R. cannot be quashed. Taking the same view, if the petitioners' claim the coal seized in connection with this case and produce valid documents to the satisfaction of the Court below, that may be released in their favour but so far investigation is concerned, that cannot be stopped and F.I.R. cannot be quashed. The interim relief granted vide Order Dated 12.02.1998 that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners, is hereby vacated. The Investigating Officer is given liberty to proceed with the investigation if it has not yet been concluded and is directed to complete the investigation preferably within three months from today and file the report as required under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. The Investigating Officer is also directed to verify the documents if produced by the petitioners claiming their ownership against the coal seized. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of.