Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 583 (JHR)

Mohan Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand

2014-05-02

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT H.C. MISHRA, J. 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the revision application. 2. In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing the revision application is, hereby, condoned. 3. The aforesaid I.A. is accordingly allowed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, whereby, the vehicle in question has been confiscated by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. 6. It appears that the vehicle, in question was seized in connection with Senha P.S. Case No. 63 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 441 of 2012, for the offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act. The petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle has also been made accused in the said case. 7. It appears that the Officer-in-charge of Senha Police Station submitted a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga, for confiscation of the vehicle under Section 17E of the CLA Act. On the basis of the said requisition, Confiscation Case No. 6 of 2012-13 was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the vehicle be not confiscated. Thereafter, by order dated 17.12.2013, the vehicle has been confiscated by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely a non-speaking order and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that Section 17-E of the CLA Act does not deal with the confiscation of the vehicle, but without hearing the objection of the petitioner and without discussing any material on record, the said vehicle has been confiscated. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 10. The order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga is reproduced here-in-below:- "Respondent Present. Respondents are on bail. But it does not explain that bail is the cent (sic.) reason for free vehicle from acquisition. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 10. The order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga is reproduced here-in-below:- "Respondent Present. Respondents are on bail. But it does not explain that bail is the cent (sic.) reason for free vehicle from acquisition. The vehicle under question is hereby confiscated till the finalization of the case." 11. The order clearly shows that it is a non-speaking order and does not speak anything except that the vehicle under question is confiscated. Such a non-speaking order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, is hereby set aside. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law, dealing with objections of the petitioner and passing a reasoned order, after giving proper notice to the petitioner about the date of hearing the objections of the petitioner. The proceeding shall be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, within the period of four months from the date of communication of this order, failing which the proceeding shall be deemed to be dropped. 13. This application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above.