Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1126 (JHR)

Anil Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-27

H.C.MISHRA

body2013
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th July, 2013, passed by Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in Petarbar P.S. Case No. 94 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 932 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of iron scraps seized in this case, has been rejected by the learned Court below. 3. It appears from the impugned order that the iron scraps were seized from a truck and the driver and khalasi had informed that the seized materials were loaded at the instance of the petitioner, who is owner of M/s Maha Laxmi Steels. It appears that there were some iron angles and some other minor parts also alongwith the iron scraps, but there seems to be no mention about these items in the documents produced by the petitioner before the Police. The Investigating Officer reported to the Court below that it appeared that in the garb of the business of the iron scraps, petitioner was dealing with the business of angles also. The impugned order also shows that the Investigating Officer had also reported that some photocopies of the registers were produced but the same were not attested by any competent authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, there is no theft report with respect to the seized materials. It is submitted that the petitioner produced the documents with respect to the seized articles, in which the iron angles were also mentioned in the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a fit case, in which the seized materials ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner, and has, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a fit case, in which the seized materials ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner, and has, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer. 6. After having heard learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order, I find that admittedly, even at the time of the seizure of the articles, it was informed that the said seized articles belonged to the petitioner and the petitioner produced the documents with respect to the seized articles, in which, though it is stated in the impugned order that the iron angles were not mentioned, but this fact is disputed by the petitioner. In my considered view, the fact remains that the seized scrap materials were claimed to be belonging to the petitioner at the time of seizure itself, and there appears to be no other claimant of the seized materials. In that view of the matter, the seized articles ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner, upon taking such undertaking/sureties/bonds as may be deemed fit and proper in facts of the case by the Court below. 7. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 16th July, 2013, passed by Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in Petarbar P.S. Case No. 94 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 932 of 2012, is hereby set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law, as also in view of the observations made above. 8. This revision application is, accordingly, allowed. 9. Let the order be communicated to the Court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.