Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 689 (JHR)

Vikay Kumar Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2017-04-12

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : From the order dated 8.3.2017, it appears that Cr. M.P. No. 2442 of 2012 has wrongly been typed as Cr. M.P. No. 2442 of 2017. 2. Therefore, in the order dated 8.3.2017, the Cr. M.P. No. 2442 of 2017' shall be read as 'Cr. M.P. No. 2442 of 2012'. 3. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P. for the State. 4. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.9.2012 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 103 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro whereby and whereunder the order dated 2.7.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2012 rejecting the application for release of iron scrap preferred by the petitioner has been affirmed. 5. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the iron scrap and the same was being transported in a truck which was subsequently seized and which led to institution of Balidih P.S. Case No. 63 of 2000. He further submits that the FIR itself suggests that the iron scraps were validly purchased by the petitioner. It has also been stated that the petitioner is the power of attorney holder of M/s. Gayatri Steel and he is the husband of the proprietor Smt. Sulochana Devi. Learned counsel further submits that learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has committed an illegality in refusing to release the iron scraps in favour of the petitioner by holding that the scraps can only be released to the owner of the truck. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration that at the time of seizure, no document with respect to iron scraps was produced before the police. 6. Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned A.P.P. for the State although has opposed the impugned order, but has stated that verification report dated 25.07.2001 does suggest that the petitioner is the genuine owner of the iron scrap which was seized by the police. 7. It appears that the petitioner was never been made accused in Balidih P.S. Case No. 63 of 2000 and the persons who were sent up for trial were acquitted. 7. It appears that the petitioner was never been made accused in Balidih P.S. Case No. 63 of 2000 and the persons who were sent up for trial were acquitted. Earlier the petitioner filed an application for release which was rejected by this Court on the ground that trial was proceeding. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an application for release vide Misc. Case No. 2 of 2012 after the trial ended which however was rejected on 02.07.2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Bokaro on the ground that mere acquittal of accused persons would not justify the release of iron scraps in favour of the petitioner. A further ground was taken that the documents with respect of iron scraps were never produced before the police at the time of seizure. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate has preferred a revision application in Cr. Revision No. 103 of 2012 which however was dismissed on 21.9.2012 holding that only person in whose favour the iron scraps can be released is the owner of the truck which was seized. Although consideration has been made with respect to the verification report of the I.O. dated 25.7.2001, but no finding has been given with respect to the claim of the petitioner of being the owner of the iron scraps. A perusal of the verification report dated 25.7.2001 which was brought on record by the learned A.P.P. by way of supplementary counter-affidavit would reveal that the document submitted by the petitioner was duly verified and the same were found to be genuine. 8. Such circumstances therefore points to the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the iron scrap seized in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No. 63 of 2000. Since, the verification report substantiates the claim of the petitioner of being the owner of iron scraps and since none of the Courts below has properly appreciated the facts before rejecting the application for release while setting aside the orders dated 2.7.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2012 and dated 21.9.2012 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 103 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, the learned trial Court is directed to release the iron scraps in favour of the petitioner on the terms and conditions it may impose upon the petitioner. 9. Case No. 2 of 2012 and dated 21.9.2012 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 103 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, the learned trial Court is directed to release the iron scraps in favour of the petitioner on the terms and conditions it may impose upon the petitioner. 9. This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.