Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1540 (JHR)

Shivchandra Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-07-12

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the learned SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat in Bermo P. S. Case No. 144 of 2017 by which the release application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. On the allegation that a truck was illegally transporting twenty tons of coal Bermo P. S. Case No. 144 of 2017 was instituted. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the seized truck bearing Registration No. CG 04 JA 4387. The release application was preferred before the learned SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat which however was rejected on 21.05.2018, on a perusal of the report of the concerned police station wherein it has been stated that the recommendation has been made for initiation of a confiscation proceeding and the release application was rejected merely on there being recommendation made for initiation of a confiscation proceeding. Such futuristic action on the part of the investigating officer could not have weighed down the learned Magistrate while considering the release application preferred by the petitioner. 4. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate should have considered as to whether the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and thereafter proceeded to pass necessary orders without being influenced by any purported recommendation made by the investigating officer of the case. 5. Since the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 has been rejected only on there being recommendation for initiation of confiscation proceeding the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the respective parties. 6. It is made clear that mere recommendation for initiation of a confiscation proceeding shall not come in the way of learned SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner if the petitioner fulfills the required parameters substantiating his ownership over the vehicle in question. 7. The exercise indicated above should be concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.