Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 857 (JHR)

Zamir Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-17

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2016
ORDER : Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Chirkunda (Galfarbari) P.S. Case no. 113 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for release of coal dust seized in connection with the aforesaid case, has been rejected. 2. Filtering out the unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this revision application based on the self-written report of the informant, the S.I. of the concerned police, in short, is that after receiving secret information that coal smugglers are collecting coal at Jharkhand Fuels, Dudhiapani, a raid was conducted and mark of bicycle was found on the rear side of the factory gate but no bicycle was found there. However, about four tons of coal dust was lying in the factory premises. Since on demand, no paper was produced by the person present there, the said coal dust was seized. 3. It appears that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s. Jharkhand Fuels, Dudhiapani, filed a petition that the seized coal dust was purchased for manufacturing of coal briquettes and in support of valid and genuine purchase, all the relevant papers were enclosed including different bills and challans and prayed to the court to release the seized coal dust but the court below vide order impugned dated 09.09.2015 rejected the prayer. Hence, this revision. 4. Mrs. Mazumdar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as bad in law and perverse seriously contended that the court below even after considering the report of the Investigating Officer, wherein it has been shown that the documents filed by the petitioner were all valid, without applying his judicial mind, rejected the prayer for release on mere presumption of Investigating Officer that the cyclists after collecting illegal coals have kept them in the premises of the factory. Though after verification of the relevant papers showing the valid purchase of the coal dust, the license granted by the concerned authority for manufacturing the coal briquettes and the documents relating to sale of coal briquettes, the I.O. found them genuine but presumed that the seized coal dusts were collected by the cyclists. Hence, the finding of the court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. As such, direction may be given to the court concerned to release the seized coal dust. 5. Hence, the finding of the court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. As such, direction may be given to the court concerned to release the seized coal dust. 5. Learned counsel representing the State, contrary to the aforesaid submissions, seriously opposed the prayer relying upon the report of the I.O. 6. It appears from the record that after filing of the relevant documents and bills of purchase and sale of the coal dust and subsequently the sale of manufactured coal briquettes, the I.O. found those purchases as genuine, which would appear from the report of the Investigating Officer as enclosed with this revision application as Annexure-3 but in the concluding part of the report, the I.O. has shown his apprehension that the said coal dust were collected and kept illegally by the cyclists. It further appears from Anneuxre-2 series i.e. the licence granted by the competent authority of Government of Jharkhand, that the factory of M/s. Jharkhand Fuels, Dudhiapani was registered and was manufacturing coal briquettes and merely because the investigation is still pending, the court below has rejected the prayer for release of the seized coal dust. 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that since the coal dust was admittedly seized from the factory premises of the petitioner, the same ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner by the court below, upon taking such undertaking/sureties/bonds from the petitioner as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere release of the coal shall not prejudice the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 09.09.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. Case no. 1656 of 2015 is, hereby, set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order of release of the seized coal dust in accordance with law and in view of the observations made above. 9. This revision application is, accordingly, allowed. Application allowed.