Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 173 (JHR)

Mohan Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 19.10.2016, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in Mandu (W.B) P.S. Case No.124 of 2015/ 124/2015, by which application preferred by the petitioner for release of Tractor-cum Pay Loader bearing registration no. JH01AB-2262 has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely on anticipation of initiation of a confiscation proceeding, learned court below has refused to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the application for release was filed on 10.2.2016 and on 19.10.2016 such application was rejected. It has also been submitted that till date the confiscation proceeding has not been initiated by the forest officials and merely a recommendation has been made for initiation of a confiscation proceeding. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the vehicle was seized for committing a forest offence and in fact a confiscation proceeding has already been initiated with respect to the coal, which was seized from the concerned factory. 5. The FIR contains allegation that the Factory premises of Popular Hard Coke & Mineral Pvt. Ltd. was raided by the police party and 2000 MT coal was seized along with Pay Loader and other machines. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of Tractor cum Pay Loader bearing registration no. JH01AB-2262, which was seized. An application for release was filed on 10.2.2016 but the same was dismissed on 19.10.2016 on the ground that steps have already been taken by the police for initiation of a confiscation proceeding. It appears from the counter affidavit that confiscation proceeding has till date not been initiated and merely a recommendation has been made for initiation of a confiscation proceeding. Since a confiscation proceeding has not been initiated as yet and the vehicle is being kept in police station which is suffering from vagaries of weather, it would not be feasible or practicable to keep the vehicle in question in the custody of police in anticipation of initiation of a confiscation proceeding. From the impugned order, it does not appear that any step has been taken by the learned court below for getting the documents verified with respect to ownership of Tractor-cum Pay Loader bearing registration no. JH01AB-2262. From the impugned order, it does not appear that any step has been taken by the learned court below for getting the documents verified with respect to ownership of Tractor-cum Pay Loader bearing registration no. JH01AB-2262. In such circumstances, therefore, the impugned order dated 19.10.2016, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in Mandu (W.B) P.S. Case No.124 of2015/124/2015, by which application preferred by the petitioner for release of Tractor-cum Pay Loader bearing registration no. JH01AB-2262 has been rejected, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after proper verification of the ownership of the petitioner with respect to the vehicle bearing registration no. JH01AB-2262. 6. It is made clear that the prospective initiation of confiscation proceeding would not come in the way of the learned Magistrate to pass an appropriate order on the release application preferred by the petitioner. 7. Exercise indicated above should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.