Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1218 (JHR)

Uttam Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-12

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 3.6.2013 passed in Cr. Rev. No.15 of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge IV, Dhanbad affirming the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Govindpur P.S. Case no.322 of 2011 whereby and whereunder prayer made for release of 320 bags of cement and 450 empty bags of cement was rejected. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on getting secret information that the petitioner had indulged himself in selling cement using the bags of ACC and Lafarge in order to cheat the people a raid was laid where 320 bags of cement either marketing of ACC or Lafarge as well as 450 empty bags of cement were recovered. 4. On the said allegation, Govindpur P.S. Cae no.322 of 2011 was registered under Sections 419, 420 and 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After submission of the charge sheet, an application was filed for release of the cement seized by the police but that prayer was rejected holding therein that cement is the material exhibit of the case and that the petitioner has failed to establish the ownership over the cement. That order was challenged before the revisional court but the revisional court also rejected the prayer for release of the cement as well as empty bags. 6. Being aggrieved with those orders, this application has been filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting the entire allegation to be true, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence either under Section 419 of 420 of the Indian Penal code as it is the case of the prosecution that when raid was laid 320 bags of cement were found which were having marking of ACCE and Lafargee. 8. 8. Since those names phonetically were similar to ACC and Lafarge, allegation was made that locally manufactured cement was being sold as that of cement manufactured by ACC and Lafarge but admittedly the bags were never having any marking of ACC or Lafarge, rather it was marking of ACCE and LAFARGEE and moreover, no one has come forward to claim that he has been cheated by the petitioner by selling said cement claiming to have been manufactured by ACC or Lafarge and therefore, under the circumstances, cement and the empty bags of cement should have been released by the court below but it has not been released and thereby the court, under the circumstances stated above, certainly committed illegality in refusing to release the cement and empty bags of cement. 9. I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 10. It never happens to be the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had indulged himself in selling cement by claiming it to have been manufactured by ACC or Lafarge, rather the case of the prosecution seems to be that cement was found in the bags having marking of ACCE and LAFARGEE and further no useful purpose would be served by allowing the cement and empty bags of cement to be kept in the custody of the police. 11. Under the circumstances, the court below seems to have committed illegality in refusing the prayer for release of the cement as well as empty bags of cement. Accordingly, both the orders are hereby set aside. 12. Let the empty bags of cement as well as cement seized by the police be released in favour of the petitioner by keeping sample of the empty bags of cement as well as cement itself on furnishing bond of Rs.1 lac with one surety to the satisfaction of the court below. 13. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.