Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 531 (JHR)

Kiran Devi @ Kiran Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-27

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
ORDER : This criminal revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) against the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case no. 331 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case no. 4400 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioner for release of his Truck bearing registration no. BR 01GA-7868 has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 11.11.2014 in course of evening patrolling, the informant received some confidential information and thereafter, the patrolling party apprehended two trucks bearing Truck No. BR01GA-7868 and Truck No. BR02M-4066 loaded with illegal stone chips and on the basis of which, F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 414/420 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(1)A and 21 of the Minor Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act and also under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner being the owner of the Truck No. BR01GA-7868 filed an application in the court concerned for its release as it was a commercial vehicle but his prayer has been rejected by the court below holding that since the confiscation proceeding has been initiated, the vehicle in question cannot be released. This order was passed on the basis of a report received from the District Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer of Wild Life Division, Hazaribag, wherein it was informed that confiscation proceeding has been initiated. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the order passed by the court below needs no interference as the confiscation proceeding of the vehicle and the seized material has been initiated. 5. This Court at present is not going into the merit of the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. The truck in question stands seized since 11.11.2014. It is common knowledge that vehicles are vulnerable to vagaries of nature in case they are kept in open space without adequate care. 6. In a case Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Versus State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 S.C.C. Page 283] [:2003 (4) JLJR (SC) 134], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that commercial vehicles seized in respect of offence shall not be kept in custody for a very long period. 6. In a case Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Versus State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 S.C.C. Page 283] [:2003 (4) JLJR (SC) 134], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that commercial vehicles seized in respect of offence shall not be kept in custody for a very long period. The vehicle owner, in case, approaches for release of the same prompt action should be taken after preparing necessary Panchnama in case is required, steps shall be taken for identification and also for recording evidence and adopt other appropriate measures, so that in the event the property is subjected to natural decay the evidence is available during proceedings. In paragraph 17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held as follows: “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 7. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the court below shall take appropriate steps to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner as an interim measure after taking adequate security and also indemnity bond or whatever other safety measures as it thinks proper in the circumstances of the case. The Magistrate shall also take steps to make a proper Panchanama, which shall be kept on record for further use during proceedings, so that the trial may not be hampered. The petitioner is directed to appear in confiscation proceeding, if any, and file his show-cause. 8. In view of the direction given above, this revision application is, hereby, allowed with a direction that in the event the petitioner approaches the court concerned for release of the vehicle, the same would be released in favour of the petitioner after taking adequate safety measures including indemnity bond and imposing conditions as stated above. The owner of the vehicle would also give an undertaking that she would not dispose of the vehicle during pendency of the case in court below and would produce the vehicle as and when required. 9. The owner of the vehicle would also give an undertaking that she would not dispose of the vehicle during pendency of the case in court below and would produce the vehicle as and when required. 9. The impugned order dated 05.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case no. 331 of 2014 is, hereby, set aside. This order of release of vehicle will not prejudice the parties and will be subject to the final decision of the confiscation case. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.