Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 816 (JHR)

Satyanarayan Agrawal v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-31

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2014passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2013, whereby the revision filed against the order dated 28.09.2013, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikalla, in G.R. No. 871 of 2013, rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicles in question. has been dismissed by the Revisional Court below. 3. The petitioner has been made accused in Seraikella P.S. Case No. 99 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 871 of 2013, as two tractors, one loaded with sand and the other loaded with stone were apprehended by the Mines Inspector and the F.I.R. was lodged. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of one of the seized tractors bearing Registration No. JH 05Z 6807 and its trolley, had filed the application in the Court below for their release being commercial vehicles. The Court below obtained the report from the concerned police station which reported that the petitioner was the owner of the vehicles. However, in view of the fact that on the basis of the prayer made by the Investigating Officer the confiscation proceeding of the vehicles had already been initiated, the prayer for release of the vehicles in question was refused by the Court below by the impugned order dated 28.09.2013. It is also mentioned in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court that the documents relating to the seized tractor had been sent for verification to the concerned D.T.O., but the report was still awaited. The revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Revisional Court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below, rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicles only on the ground that confiscation proceeding had been initiated with respect to them, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is pointed out that the prosecution in the present case has been instituted under the M.M.D.R. Act and in a similar matter where also the prosecution was instituted under the M.M.D.R. Act and the confiscation proceeding with respect to the vehicles in question had been initiated, this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 3095 of 2013 (Biva Jha Vs. It is pointed out that the prosecution in the present case has been instituted under the M.M.D.R. Act and in a similar matter where also the prosecution was instituted under the M.M.D.R. Act and the confiscation proceeding with respect to the vehicles in question had been initiated, this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 3095 of 2013 (Biva Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand), disposed of on 19.12.2013, has held taking note of Section 24(4-A) of the M.M.D.R. Act, that there is no provision which prevents the Court from making the order for release of the vehicle seized in a case for contravention of the M.M.D.R. Act, only on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated, and accordingly, it was not proper on the part of the Court to refuse the prayer for release on the said ground. Learned counsel placing reliance on the said decision has submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 6. The law laid down by this Court in the case of Biva Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) appears to be fully applicable to the facts of this case. However, there is yet another aspect of the matter. It is mentioned in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court that the documents relating to the seized vehicles had been sent for verification to the concerned D.T.O., but the report was still awaited. The police report showed that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicles in question. In my considered view, if the petitioner is found to be the registered owner of the vehicles in question and the investigation in the case has been completed, there appears to be no reason as to why the vehicles be not released in favour of the petitioner, irrespective of the fact that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated with respect to the vehicles. Since the vehicles in question are commercial vehicles, the same ought to have been released in favour of the registered owner, upon taking such sureties / bonds / undertakings, as the Court may think fit and proper in the facts of the case, including the undertaking that the release of the vehicles shall not prejudice the prosecution case in any manner and that the vehicles shall be produced as and when so directed by the Court. Indeed, any such order can be passed only upon getting the report from the concerned D.T.O., which report was still awaited, as it appears from the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 28.09.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikalla, in G.R. No. 871 of 2013, as also the order dated 17.01.2014passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2013, are hereby set aside and the Trial Court is directed to get the report from the concerned D.T.O., and to pass the order afresh in accordance with law and in view of the observations made above. 8. This application is accordingly, allowed with the directions and observations as above.