Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 129 (JHR)

Seo Prasad Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 26.05.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2006 by which the order of release 19.09.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in G.R. No. 1674 of 1988 was set aside. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the rightful owner of 45 bags of Charcoal which was seized by the Forest Department. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has subsequently been acquitted in the criminal case. It has also been submitted that the money suit which was preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as being premature. Learned Sessions Judge could not have taken into consideration the fact that the ownership of the seized charcoal was never decided by a competent civil court. It has also been submitted that since the seized charcoal itself disappeared, as the Range Forest officer, who had seized the said Charcoal, subsequently retired without giving charge and later on expired, the amount in lieu of the said charcoal should be paid to the petitioner in view of the acquittal of the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the charcoal was seized from an open place and not from the house of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, giving benefit of doubt. Learned counsel further adds that the impugned order dated 26.05.2007 has rightly been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2006, refusing to release the charcoal in favour of the petitioner, as no 2. document was produced by him in support of his claim with respect to seized charcoal. Learned Judicial Magistrate only considering the acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case, passed order dated 19.09.2006 directing the Divisional Forest Officer, North, Palamau, Daltonganj to make payment within 10 days, a sum equivalent to the value of the seized articles, which fact has properly been considered by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, while setting the said order dated 19.09.2006. 5. Learned Judicial Magistrate only considering the acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case, passed order dated 19.09.2006 directing the Divisional Forest Officer, North, Palamau, Daltonganj to make payment within 10 days, a sum equivalent to the value of the seized articles, which fact has properly been considered by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, while setting the said order dated 19.09.2006. 5. It appears that the petitioner had filed a money suit vide Money Suit No. 03 of 1991 raising claim with respect to the seized charcoal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.04.1995, as being premature since the criminal case was already pending as also recording a finding that the petitioner had failed to produce any document with respect to his claim regarding seized articles. The petitioner has challenged the order in First Appeal vide F.A. No. 180 of 1996 before this Court which however was also dismissed. The learned Magistrate had passed the order dated 19.09.2006 begin weighed by the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. The learned revisional court had taken into consideration the fact that the learned Magistrate was oblivious to the documents submitted by the Forest Department countering the claim of the petitioner that the articles were seized from an open place and not from the house of the petitioner. Although the suit was dismissed as premature, but on consideration of the evidence it had been concluded that the petitioner did not have the legal title and ownership over the seized articles, which was subsequently affirmed as the First Appeal was also dismissed. The supplementary counter affidavit which has been filed by the Forest Department reveals that the articles are traceless, as the Range Forest Officer who had seized the articles has already retired and had subsequently expired. The order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 19.09.2006 was erroneous as sufficient consideration had not been made to the documents submitted by the Forest Department as to the fact that the articles were seized from an open place. Mere consideration has been made that since the petitioner was acquitted, the amount equivalent to the seized charcoal was directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. Considering the error committed by learned Magistrate, learned Sessions Judge, Palamau set aside the order of release dated 19.09.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate. 6. Mere consideration has been made that since the petitioner was acquitted, the amount equivalent to the seized charcoal was directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. Considering the error committed by learned Magistrate, learned Sessions Judge, Palamau set aside the order of release dated 19.09.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate. 6. There being no cause to interfere with impugned the order dated 26.05.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 20 06, whereby the order of release dated 19.09.2006, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in G.R. No. 1674 of 1988, was set aside, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.