Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 807 (JHR)

Firoj Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-08

H.C.MISHRA

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This case depicts a sad and sordid picture as to how the petitioner is being harassed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.5.2013 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, in S.T. No.146 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the Maruti Van bearing registration No. JH-10F-9867, seized in connection with the criminal case, in which the trial is pending before the Court below, has been rejected by the Court below. 4. When the vehicle was seized, the petitioner was not the registered owner of the vehicle, though he filed the application in the Court below for releasing the vehicle, claiming that he had purchased the same from the registered owner. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, on 5.7.2012 holding that the petitioner was not the registered owner of the vehicle. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in the Cr. Revision No.683 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 17.1.2013 by this Court, giving the liberty to the petitioner to file the application afresh, if he had any document to show that the vehicle in question was transferred in his favour, and the Court below was directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner, in any. 5. The petitioner again filed the application for release of the vehicle in question in his favour, and a report was called for from the DTO, Dhanbad, regarding the ownership of the said vehicle. Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, however did not give any finding whether the vehicle was transferred in favour of the petitioner or not, but by order dated 20.2.2013, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, to pass the order on the point of the 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. 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 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to take the decision in the matter. That order was challenged by the petitioner in this Court in Cr. Revision No.319 of 2013 and this Court found that the petitioner was being unnecessarily harassed by the Court below, which was just shifting the responsibility on the other Court to pass the order. This Court also found justification in the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that he was not competent to pass the order as the case had already been committed to the Court of Session. This Court accordingly, by order dated 16.5.2013 passed in Cr. Revision No.319 of 2013, set-aside the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in the following terms :- “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.” (Emphasis supplied). 6. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, has passed the impugned order dated 27.5.2013 again rejecting the application of the petitioner. 8. This application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above.” (Emphasis supplied). 6. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, has passed the impugned order dated 27.5.2013 again rejecting the application of the petitioner. The impugned order shows that the Court below has taken into consideration the letter of DTO, Dhanbad, about the ownership of the petitioner over the vehicle in question, which showed that the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle No. JH-10F-9867. However, the Court held that the said report was vague and in view of the fact that the vehicle in question was involved in the commission of crime, as also due to the fact that the nature of the vehicle was not clear whether the same was for public use or for personal use, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Court below. 7. This has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court once again by way of present application, annexing herewith the report of the District Transport Officer, Dhanbad, as Annexure – 2 by way of supplementary affidavit. This report clearly shows that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle No. JH-10F-9867. If the Court had still some doubt about it, the Court below ought to have taken further clarification(s), if necessary, and ought to have disposed of the application in view of the directions passed by this Court by order dated 16.5.2013 in Cr. Revision No.319 of 2013, wherein there was a clear direction to release the vehicle, if the petitioner was found to be the registered owner of the same. The Court below was not left with any other option, but to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner, once the petitioner was found to be the registered owner of the same, in spite of the fact that the said vehicle was seized in connection with the criminal case. There is nothing new in releasing the vehicles seized in connection with the criminal cases, in favour of the registered owners imposing some conditions. However, the Court below appears to be pre-occupied with particular notion, and has again rejected the application of the petitioner, stating that the report was vague, the nature of the vehicle was not clear and the vehicle was involved in the commission of crime, in spite of the clear cut direction of this Court. 8. However, the Court below appears to be pre-occupied with particular notion, and has again rejected the application of the petitioner, stating that the report was vague, the nature of the vehicle was not clear and the vehicle was involved in the commission of crime, in spite of the clear cut direction of this Court. 8. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I find that now there is no use leaving the matter at the mercy of the Court below, as the petitioner has been sufficiently harassed in the matter. The report of the District Transport Officer, Dhanbad, as contained in Annexure – 2 to the supplementary affidavit, clearly shows that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle No. JH-10F-9867. The Court below is directed to release the said vehicle immediately in favour of the petitioner upon the petitioner’s furnishing the indemnity bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rs. One lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below and upon furnishing the undertaking that the petitioner shall not tamper with, or transfer the vehicle during the pendency of the trial and shall produce the same as and when required by the Court below. 9. This application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above.