Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 8 (JHR)

Mukesh Kumar @ Raju Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-02

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against that part of the order dated 30.9.2013 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Saraikella in Cr. Revision No. 79 of 2013, affirming the order dated 11.9.2013 passed by S.D.J.M. in Misc. Case No.2 of 2013 (Kandra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2013), whereby and whereunder prayer for release of three Trucks bearing Nos. JH, 05-AD-5514. JH 05-AD-0514 and JH 02L-0487 as well as three Hywas bearing Nos. JH 05-AS-2173, JH 05-AS-2174 and JH 05-AS-5213 and also two other vehicles bearing Nos. JH 05-AT-0628 and JH 05-AT -0629 was rejected. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on receiving secret information that some persons have indulged themselves in doing business of coal clandestinely, a raid was laid behind the hotel of Santosh Majhi, where 1600 MT of coal was found stored. There six trucks, two Pay-loaders and three Hywas were found standing over there. The coal was suspected to be the stolen one and at the same time, it was also suspected that some persons have indulged themselves in trading of coal illegally and for that a case was registered for commission of the offence under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code as well as for contravention of the provision of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (for short MMDR Act) and Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules. 2007. The trucks, Pay-loaders and also Hywas were seized. 4. Upon seizure of the said vehicles, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of five trucks as well as three Hywas before the Court below which prayer was rejected on the premise that the confiscation proceeding for confiscating the vehicle has already been initiated. That order was challenged before the revisional Court but the revisional Court by assigning the same reason also rejected the revision application. 5. Being aggrieved with this order, this application has been filed. 6. Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that by the same impugned order, the prayer for release of the trucks as well as Pay-loaders and also Hywa had been rejected. Against the order rejecting the prayer for release of Pay-loader one Biva Jha had moved to this Court vide Cr. M.P. No.3095 of 2013. 6. Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that by the same impugned order, the prayer for release of the trucks as well as Pay-loaders and also Hywa had been rejected. Against the order rejecting the prayer for release of Pay-loader one Biva Jha had moved to this Court vide Cr. M.P. No.3095 of 2013. This Court after taking into account the fact that under the MMDR Act no provision is there which puts bar upon a Court to release the vehicle, a subject matter of confiscation proceeding, and further that no case is made out under the MMDR Act. has passed an order to release the Pay-loader in favour of the petitioner (Siva Jha) vide order dated 19.12.2013 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 3095 of 2013 and. therefore, on the same reasoning, this application also deserves to be allowed particularly when the petitioner has still not been charge-sheeted whereas in that case referred to above, the petitioner (Biva Jha) has been charge-sheeted and thereby the case of the petitioner stands on far better footing. 7. On perusal of the order dated 19.12.2013 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 3095 of 2013, it does appear that the Court while allowing the said application had taken notice of the fact that no provision seems to be there under the MMDR Act which prevents the Court from making the order for releasing the vehicle seized in a case for contravention of the MMDR Act. Further, the Court has also taken notice of the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted against some of the accused persons only under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code. Further, the Court has taken notice of the fact that the vehicle, which has been seized, had been hypotheticated to a financial institution and in the circumstances, it was found by the Court that it would not be proper and appropriate to allow the vehicle to be kept in the police custody. 8. Here in the instant case, most of the vehicles are said to have been hypotheticated to a financial institution. Therefore, for the same reason, which has been assigned in that case, referred to above, I do find that it would not be proper and appropriate to allow the vehicles to be kept in the police custody. 9. Accordingly, let three Trucks bearing Nos. Therefore, for the same reason, which has been assigned in that case, referred to above, I do find that it would not be proper and appropriate to allow the vehicles to be kept in the police custody. 9. Accordingly, let three Trucks bearing Nos. JH 05-AD-5514, JH 05-AD-0514 and JH 02-L-0487 as well as three Hywas bearing Nos. JH 05-AS-2173, JH 05-AS-2174 and JH 05-AS-5213 and also two other vehicles bearing Nos. JH 05-AT-0628 and JH 05-AT-0629 be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing security bond of Rs. 1,43,00,000/- (one crore & forty three lakhs) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Seraikella on giving undertaking that whenever it shall be required by the Court, the same would be produced. 10. In the result, this application is allowed. Application allowed.