Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 681 (JHR)

Ram Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-14

H.C.MISHRA

body2013
ORDER By the Court.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by Sri Kankan Pattadar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad, in Misc. Case No.1 of 2012, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for release of the coal seized from his premises in connection with Nirsa P.S Case No.8 of 2006 has been rejected by the Court below. 3. It appears that the petitioner being the owner of M/s Maa Kalyaneshwari Industries Refectory, has been made accused in Nirsa P.S Case No.8 of 2006 corresponding to G.R No. 68 of 2006, on the allegation that on the date of occurrence i.e., on 6.1.2006, six tones of coal which were allegedly stolen, were recovered from, the factory of the petitioner. The case was instituted only for the offence under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the recovered coal were seized. 4. It appears that the petitioner had faced the trial for the offence under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21(1) M.M. Act and the petitioner was acquitted after trial by the judgment dated 21st June, 2012, passed by Sri Kankan Pattadar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad, in G.R No.68 of 2006/T.R No. 258 of 2012. 5. The petitioner after his acquittal in the trial, filed the application for release of the coal in his favour which was admittedly seized from his factory, but the same was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 19.12.2012, finding that from the submission of the verification report, submitted by the I.O of the case before the submission of the charge-sheet, it appeared that the sample of the coal seized did not match with the sample of the coal of the collieries from where the documents were issued with respect to the coal and on that ground only, an application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Court below. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, admittedly the coal was seized from the factory premises of the petitioner and the case was instituted for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner faced the trial and he has been acquitted of the trial. The petitioner faced the trial and he has been acquitted of the trial. There is no other claimant of the seized coal, in question and in that view of the matter, when the prosecution has failed to prove that the coal was stolen property, the same ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as the sample of the coal seized from the factory of the petitioner did not match with the sample of the coal of the collieries from where they were claimed to have been purchased. 8. After having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that admittedly, the coal had been seized from the factory premises of the petitioner on the allegation that the same were stolen property. Admittedly, the petitioner has faced the trial and he has been acquitted after trial and the prosecution has failed to prove that the seized coal were stolen property. In that view of the matter, the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the Court below only on the basis of the verification report, as it was submitted by the I.O prior to the submission of the charge-sheet. Once the petitioner was acquitted of the charge in the trial, upon the prosecution having failed to prove that the coal seized from the factory premises of the petitioner was stolen property, the seized coal ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.12.2012 passed by Sri Kankan Pattadar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad, in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2012, is hereby, set aside and the Court below is directed to release the seized coal in connection with this case in favour of the petitioner. 10. Consequently, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.