Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 637 (JHR)

Firoj Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2013-05-16

H.C.MISHRA

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner had filed the application for release of his vehicle, which has been seized in connection with a criminal case, in which the trial is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridigh, in S.T. No.146 of 2012. 3. It appears that when the vehicle was seized, the petitioner was not the registered owner of the vehicle, though he had claimed to have purchased the vehicle from the registered owner. The petitioner filed his application for release of the vehicle, which was earlier rejected by order dated 5.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, as the documents filed by the petitioner showed that the registered owner of the vehicle was one Swami Charan Ram, and not the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in Cr. Revision No.683 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 17.1.2013, observing that the petitioner claimed to have purchased the vehicle from the owner Swami Charan Ram, but in view of the fact that there was nothing on the record to show that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner, no illegality was found in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, in refusing to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. However, it was observed that if the petitioner possessed any document regarding the transfer of the vehicle in question, the petitioner may file a fresh application before the Court below and the Court below was directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner, if any, in accordance with law. 4. It appears that the petitioner thereafter again filed his application for release of the vehicle in question and the report was called for from the D.T.O., Dhanbad regarding the ownership of the said vehicle. However, there appears to be no finding whether the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the petitioner or not but, the order dated 20.2.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, shows that he directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, to pass the order on the point of release of the vehicle of the petitioner. However, there appears to be no finding whether the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the petitioner or not but, the order dated 20.2.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, shows that he directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, to pass the order on the point of release of the vehicle of the petitioner. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in turn, by order dated 14.3.2013 held that he had no power to pass any order in view of the fact that the case was already committed to the Court of Session. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, again passed the order on 19.3.2013 stating that the Court was competent to ask the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the matter under Section 452 (3) of the Cr.P.C., and the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to take decision in this matter. 5. From perusal of the orders passed by the Courts below, it is apparent that one Court is just shifting the responsibility on the other Court to pass order with regard to the ownership or otherwise of the petitioner with respect to the vehicle in question. Admittedly, the earlier order rejecting the application of the petitioner for release of vehicle was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, against which the petitioner had preferred the revision in this Court, and the same was disposed of directing the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, to dispose of the application in accordance with law. In that view of the matter it was the responsibility of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih to decide the matter and he had no business to shift the responsibility on the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who observed, and in my considered view rightly so, that he was not competent to pass the order as the case had already been committed to the Court of Session. Even thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, has again tried to shift the responsibility upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that it had the authority to ask the Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass the order. 6. Upon going through the record, I find that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, by shifting the responsibility from one Court to another. This Court is not aware of the fact as to why the Addl. 6. Upon going through the record, I find that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, by shifting the responsibility from one Court to another. This Court is not aware of the fact as to why the Addl. Sessions Judge-II is shirking from his responsibility of passing the order with respect to the release of the vehicle of the petitioner, but prima facie, the action of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, is highly deprecatory. 7. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, in S.T. No.146 of 2012, is hereby, set-aside and the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, is directed to pass the order on the application of the petitioner on its merits and if it is found that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner upon taking such undertakings/ bonds/ sureties as the Court may think fit and proper in the facts of this case. 8. This application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above.