Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 917 (JHR)

Umeshwar Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2023-07-24

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : The present writ petition was initially filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2- the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Gumla to assess the value of the seized articles strictly in terms with the measurement of woods provided in the seizure list in the light of direction issued by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5893 of 2001 with a further prayer to quash the order dated 24.7.2002 passed in Special G.R. No. 278 of 1995 whereby the respondent no. 2 approved the assessment report prepared by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla Forest Division, Gumla (the respondent no. 5). Moreover, the petitioner had also prayed for quashing the valuation report/assessment report as contained in letter no. 2703 dated 22.07.2002 issued by the respondent no.5 to the respondent no. 2. 2. Due to subsequent development taking place in the matter, the petitioner filed I.A No. 4884 of 2020 for amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition by seeking challenge to the letter as contained in memo no. 1080 dated 25.03.2019 issued under the signature of Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Jharkhand Ranchi to the Superintendent of Police, Gumla (the respondent no. 3) whereby the said respondent has been directed to ensure payment of Rs.13,19,966/- to the petitioner recovering the same from the concerned erring officers/officials of Sisai police station posted at the relevant point of time i.e., institution of a criminal case regarding seizure of 278 pieces wood of ‘Sal’ trees and when release order of the said woods was issued as the said amount has been assessed by the respondent no. 5 with respect to the seized woods at the rate prevalent in the year 1995. Further challenge has been made to letter no. 133 dated 08.03.2019 issued by the respondent no. 3 to the Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Jharkhand whereby information has been given with respect to the price of seized woods calculated at the rate prevalent in the year 1995. It has also been prayed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to calculate the cost of the woods taking into account the present prevalent rate which will approximately be Rs. 55-60 Lakhs. 3. It has also been prayed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to calculate the cost of the woods taking into account the present prevalent rate which will approximately be Rs. 55-60 Lakhs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 18.04.1995, the Sisai Police Station seized 278 pieces wood of ‘Sal’ trees which were cut down from the land belonging to the petitioner/his father appertaining to plot no.3808, Khata No.189, village- Chharda measuring an area of 3.61 decimals and accordingly, an F.I.R. being Sisai P.S. Case no. 36 of 1995 was lodged against the petitioner’s father corresponding to G.R. No. 278 of 1995 under Sections 406, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21(a) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 alleging that the said trees were cut down without permission of the authorities. Thereafter, a seizure list of said woods was prepared. After investigation of the said criminal case, a chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner and his father under the aforesaid sections, however charges were framed against them under Section 379 I.P.C. and Section 20 of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984. 4. It is further submitted that during pendency of the said criminal case, an order dated 25.04.1997 was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with G.R. Case No. 278 of 1995 for release of the seized woods, however the same were not released by the police. As such, the petitioner filed contempt petition before this Court being Original Criminal Miscellaneous No. 08 of 1999 (R) which was disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2000 directing the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla to take action if the seized articles were not released. Pursuant to the said order, learned Judicial Magistrate, Gumla issued show cause notice to Mr. Srikant Singh, the then Officer-In-Charge, Sisai Police Station which was replied by him stating that the seized woods were not brought to the premises of Sisai police station, rather the same were given in the custody of one Baiju Bhagat by then investigating officer. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class vide order dated 18.3.2000 passed in G.R. Case No. 278 of 1995 held that the said woods were already misappropriated by the Police Officers posted at the time of institution of the case as well as at the time when the release order of the seized woods was issued. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class vide order dated 18.3.2000 passed in G.R. Case No. 278 of 1995 held that the said woods were already misappropriated by the Police Officers posted at the time of institution of the case as well as at the time when the release order of the seized woods was issued. Subsequently, G.R. Case No. 278 of 1995 was disposed of vide order dated 31.07.2001 acquitting the petitioner and his father of the charges levelled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 5893 of 2001 for release of the said woods which was disposed of vide order dated 18.06.2002 holding that the petitioner was entitled to get value of the said articles at the rate prevailing on the date when those articles were seized and the Judicial Magistrate, Gumla was directed to assess the value of the seized articles after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 6. Pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2002 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, learned Judicial Magistrate referred the entire matter to the respondent no. 5 who assessed the value of the seized woods and submitted his report to Judicial Magistrate, Gumla vide letter no. 2703 dated 22.7.2002 determining the total value of 278 pieces of ‘Sal’ wood as Rs.38,293.05/- which was accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate, Gumla without verifying the assessed value of the seized articles as was ordered in W.P.(C) No.5893 of 2001 and vide order dated 24.07.2002, directed the state government to pay the said amount to the petitioner. Under the said situation, the present writ petition was filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner made complaint in the ‘Mukhyamantri Jan Samvad Kendra, Gumla, Jharkhand’ vide Complaint No. 2017-13150 dated 4.4.2017 whereupon the respondent no. 3 got the measurement of the seized woods as well as their valuation done as per the seizure list by the respondent no. 5 and a report regarding the same was sent to the Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Jharkhand, Ranchi on 29.10.2018. 3 got the measurement of the seized woods as well as their valuation done as per the seizure list by the respondent no. 5 and a report regarding the same was sent to the Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Jharkhand, Ranchi on 29.10.2018. As per the said report, measurement of seized woods was found as 131.348m3 and on the basis of the same, the total amount to be paid to the petitioner was calculated as Rs.52,92,668/- at the rate of Rs.40,295/m3 which was prevalent on the date of making such calculation. However, the Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Jharkhand, Ranchi, vide letter as contained in memo no. 6186 dated 06.12.2018 directed the respondent no. 3 to submit a report after reassessment of the value of seized woods at the rate prevalent on the date of seizure of the same. Pursuant to the said letter, the respondent no. 3 got the valuation of the seized woods recalculated by the respondent no. 5 which came to Rs. 13,19,966/-. The said fact will be evident from letter no. 133 dated 08.3.2019 issued by the respondent no. 3 to the Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Jharkhand, Ranchi. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the value of the seized woods at the present rate which will come to approximately Rs.55-60 lakhs. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 5893 of 2001, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla (the respondent no. 2) fixed the value of seized woods as Rs. 38,293.05/- on the basis of assessment made by the then Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla Forest Division. The said amount was received by the petitioner on 03.11.2003 in the presence of a villager namely Ban Bihari Bhagat. The said fact has been mentioned in the station diary of the concerned police station which has been suppressed by the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that the value of seized woods amounting to Rs.52,92,668/- has been assessed by the respondent no. 5 at the rate prevalent in the year 2018 which has not been approved by the Police Headquarter, Jharkhand as it was specifically directed in W.P.(C) No. 5893 of 2001 that the petitioner was entitled to get the value of seized woods at the rate prevailing on the date when those articles were seized. 10. 5 at the rate prevalent in the year 2018 which has not been approved by the Police Headquarter, Jharkhand as it was specifically directed in W.P.(C) No. 5893 of 2001 that the petitioner was entitled to get the value of seized woods at the rate prevailing on the date when those articles were seized. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The petitioner has sought issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to reassess and pay the value of seized woods as per the seizure list on present rate. 12. Admittedly, the woods of the petitioner were seized but could not be released in his favour in spite of the order dated 25.04.1997 passed by the respondent no. 2 since the seized woods were not found in the concerned police station. The petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5893 of 2001 before this Court wherein a direction was issued vide order dated 18.06.2002, the operative part of which reads as under:- "Be that as it may, the admitted position is that the seized articles have not been released in favour of the petitioner who was entitled to get back the seized articles and in that situation the petitioner would be entitled to compensation for the value of the goods. From the seizure list annexed with the writ application it appears that measurement of the seized teak wood has been mentioned and, therefore, whatever may be the quantity of the seized articles, the petitioner shall be entitled to the value of the said articles at the rate which was prevailing on the date when those articles were seized. The Judicial Magistrate is, therefore, required to assess the value of the seized articles and determine the value after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The Judicial Magistrate, Gumla before whom the concerned case was pending, shall determine the valuation within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. On determination of valuation of the seized articles, the respondent-State of Jharkhand shall pay the amount that may be determined by the Magistrate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. On determination of valuation of the seized articles, the respondent-State of Jharkhand shall pay the amount that may be determined by the Magistrate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. The State of Jharkhand, through the department of Home or through the 'Director General of Police may proceed against the police officer/(s) who are found responsible for the loss and fix the liability and recover the amount from those erring officers." 13. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it would be evident that a Bench of this Court had directed for assessment of the value of sized woods at the rate prevailing on the date when the articles were seized. 14. The contention of the respondents is that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the value of the woods was assessed by the respondent no. 5 as Rs. 38,293.05/- and the said amount was already paid to the petitioner. 15. The petitioner has accepted the said fact of payment in his supplementary affidavit dated 27.03.2023, however he has contended that the said payment was not the full and final settlement of his claim. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this court to the order dated 26.08.2003 passed in the present case wherein it was observed as under: “In the meantime, as prayed by the petitioner, let the amount assessed by the respondents be paid to him, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner.” 16. In view of the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of this Court that the payment of the amount assessed by the respondents would not prejudice the right of the petitioner, I do not find justification in the contention of the respondents to the extent that since the petitioner had received the amount earlier assessed, he has no right to claim any further amount for the seized woods. 17. It is evident that during pendency of the present writ petition, the value of the woods was assessed twice by the respondent no. 5. In the first assessment, the value of the woods was quantified at the rate prevalent at the time of calculation i.e in the year 2018. However, on further order of the Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Jharkhand, Ranchi, the value was recalculated on the basis of the rate prevalent at the time of seizure which was assessed as Rs.13,19,966/-. 18. However, on further order of the Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter), Jharkhand, Ranchi, the value was recalculated on the basis of the rate prevalent at the time of seizure which was assessed as Rs.13,19,966/-. 18. The petitioner has contended that he is entitled to get the value of the seized woods at the present rate, however the said contention is not tenable since it was explicitly observed in the order dated 18.06.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5893 of 2001 that the petitioner would be entitled to get the value of the seized woods prevailing on the date when the articles were seized and the said order remained unchallenged, thus has attained finality. That apart, the present writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and the petitioner received payment of Rs.38,293/- (round off) as far back as on 03.11.2003, however he did not inform the said fact to this court by filing an interlocutory application which shows his own negligence in delaying disposal of the present writ petition and therefore he cannot derive any benefit for his own wrong. 19. So far as the challenge to the assessment as contained in letter no. 133 dated 08.03.2019 issued by the respondent no. 3 is concerned, since the said assessment has been made by the respondent no. 5 in the light of order dated 18.06.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5893 of 2001, there is no reason to discard the same that too when the respondents have failed to controvert it by pointing out any error in it. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondent no. 3 is directed to make payment of assessed amount i.e., Rs. 13,19,966/- to the petitioner (after deducting Rs. 38,293/- already paid to him on 03.11.2003) within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner will be entitled for payment of interest on the said amount @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till the payment is made. 21. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 22. I.A. No. 4884 of 2020 also stands disposed of.