Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 437 (JHR)

Bhuneshwar Sao v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-23

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
Order 1. Hared learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This revision application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 11.6.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Maigistrate, Giridih in Hirodih P.S. Case No.27 of 2006, whereby the iron rods seized in connection with this case, were directed to released in favour of Surendra Kumar on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 30,000/-. 3. It appears that prayer for release of the said articles was earlier rejected, against which said Surendra Kumar had filed the Criminal Writ in this Court in W.P. (Cr.) 160 of 2007 and in the said Criminal Writ, petitioner was also made O.P. No.2 in view of the fact that the iron rods which were claimed by Surendra Kumar, were seized from the shop of the petitioner. By order dated 19.2.2009, the said W.P. (Cr.) No.160 of 2007 was disposed of with the direction to the Investigating Officer of the Hirodih P.S. Case No.27 of 2006 to submit the report as called by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the learned CJM, Giridih had been directed to pass the order upon receiving of the said report in the matter of release of articles in question which were said to have been seized from the shop of O.P. No.2 Bhuneshwar Sao (Petitioner). 4. It appears from the impugned order dated 11.6.2009 that said Surendra Kumar produced the documents in the Court below relating to purchase of the iron rods and the Court below, taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No.160 of 2007, passed the order for releasing the iron rods in his favour. From perusal of the said order, it appears, so far as the iron rods, which were seized from the shop of the petitioner, the petitioner Bhuneshwar Sao though, had claimed the said iron rods on the basis of the documents produced by him, but had not filed any petition to release the iron rods recovered from his possession. Though record of Cr.Rev. No.106 of 2007 showed that the petitioner Bhuneshwar Sao claimed the iron rods to have been purchased by him but said Cr. Rev. was also dismissed. Though record of Cr.Rev. No.106 of 2007 showed that the petitioner Bhuneshwar Sao claimed the iron rods to have been purchased by him but said Cr. Rev. was also dismissed. It also appears that after the order of this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.160 of 2007 had been served upon the Officer In-charge of Hirodih police station, a requisition was also sent by the Court of learned C.J.M., Giridih, but no report was submitted by the Officer In-charge. The reminder was also sent by the Court, but in vain. The registered notice was issued to this petitioner but the petitioner did not appear, nor he submitted any rejoinder to the petition, whereupon the learned counsel of this petitioner was informed and he saw the record on 27.4.09, but he never objected the release of iron rods in favour of Surender Kumar and in these circumstances, the Court below directed to release of iron rods in favour of Surender Kumar on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs.30,000/-. 5. The present Cr. Revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order on the ground that this Hon'ble Court had directed the Court below to act on the report of the Officer In-charge of Hirodih police station, but without getting the report of the Officer In-charge, the Court below had passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is absolutely illegal and it is fit to be set-aside on this score alone and the matter is fit to be remitted back. 6. I do not find any force in submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The court below had taken ample steps for getting the report of the Officer In-charge of the Hirodih Police Station but the Officer in-charge had not sent any report. The order also shows that the registered notice was issued to the petitioner also but he did not appear in the court, nor he filed any rejoinder. The advocate of the petitioner was also informed and he saw the record, but he still did not object the release of the iron rods in favour of Surender Kumar. 7. Accordingly, in my considered view, the petitioner now cannot challenge the impugned order at this belated stage. I do not find any merit in this revision application. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.