Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 385 (JHR)

Raj Chouhan @ Karpoori v. State of Jharkhand

2024-04-10

SANJAY PRASAD

body2024
JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.05.2018 passed by the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad in connection with the Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 427 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1685 of 2012 registered under Section 414/34 of the I.P.C. whereby the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad has rejected the petition dated 26.04.2018 filed by the petitioner for release of 32 MT stem coal, although the petitioner has already been acquitted in Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 427 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1685 of 2012 from the court of learned C.J.M. Dhanbad vide judgment dated 02.04.2018. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.5.2012 the police on receiving secret information at around 7.45 in the morning, had conducted a raid in the premises of Coal Briquette Plant of late Jayantri Chowdhary and had found there one Truck No. JH-10M-2815 and had seen some persons unloading the coal in the factory premises. However, on seeing the police party, some persons started fleeing away and after chase, the police arrested one person, whereas other persons fled away and the apprehended person disclosed his name as Suraj Sinha @ Prasidh Sinha, who was the driver of the Truck and also disclosed that one Jai Ram Mahto is the owner of the Truck and presently the plant is being run by one Raj Chouhan @ Karpoori who is the Bhaigna of Late Jayantri Chouhan and who is involved in illegal transaction of coal and has further disclosed that earlier also they had unloaded the coal in the premises of the factory on the instruction of the Truck Owner several times which is lying in the factory premises. He also disclosed that the stolen coal is being sent by the Truck Owner and which is unloaded in the factory by Raj Chouhan @ Karpoori. On demand of paper, the driver and other persons failed to produce any valid paper and the driver could not disclose the name of any person as they were labours who had fled away. He also disclosed that the stolen coal is being sent by the Truck Owner and which is unloaded in the factory by Raj Chouhan @ Karpoori. On demand of paper, the driver and other persons failed to produce any valid paper and the driver could not disclose the name of any person as they were labours who had fled away. Thereafter, seizure list was prepared in presence of witnesses, namely Chotu Oraon and Mohan Rajak and the coal in Truck No. JH 10 M 2815 along with the Truck, on weighment, was found to be 31,800 MT and apart from this, the remaining coal in the premises were weighed in three vacant Tractors and the First Tractor along with the Coal was found to weigh 930 kg, whereas other two Tractors along with the coal in those Tractors weighed 5 Ton 450 kg and 5 Ton 410 kg respectively and the total weight of the coal on the said Tractors was found 7 Ton 790 kg, which was also seized. 3. Heard Mr. Pratyush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. on behalf of the State. 4. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is the rightful owner and valid purchaser of the coal. It is submitted that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s Hill Briquette plant situated at Bhuiphore Saraidhela, Dhanbad and has got all the valid paper to do the coal business. It is further submitted that the petitioner has validly purchased 24.900 MT coal from M/s Prakash Associates, Barwadda on 17.04.2012 and he has also purchased 9980 MT coal from M/s Om Prakash, Basaiwala, Giridih on 29.04.2012. It is further submitted that petitioner has further purchased 10,000 Ton coal from M/s Bihar Traders, Ranchi and all these traders are running valid coal depot and purchasing the coal from M/s B.C.C.L. and M/s-C.C.L. It is submitted that even the State has filed counter affidavit and has admitted that the coal has been kept in the premises of the concerned police station and they have constructed smart police station over the coal of the petitioner. It is submitted that the police had violated Clause ‘h’ and Clause ‘m’ of Rule 307 of Jharkhand Police Manual. It is submitted that the police had violated Clause ‘h’ and Clause ‘m’ of Rule 307 of Jharkhand Police Manual. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Court below vide judgment dated 02.4.2018 passed in connection with Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 427/2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1685 of 2012. It is submitted that after acquittal of the petitioner by the learned Court below, the petitioner has filed application on 26.4.2018 for release of the coal but the same was rejected by the learned C.J.M. vide order dated 05.05.2018 illegally. It is submitted that even during investigation, the I.O. has shown only suspicion regarding stolen coal kept in the premises of the petitioner and submitted chargesheet, however, the I.O. did not turn up for his evidence before the learned Court below during trial and report of the I.O. was never subjected to cross-examination. It is further submitted that there is no theft report of the coal for around six years from the date of institution of the case till the judgment dated 02.4.2018. It is submitted that although the I.O. had made Jairam Mahto, i.e. Owner of Truck No. JH 10 M 2815 as an accused in the F.I.R. but later on the police submitted final report in his favour and has set him free. It is submitted that the seized coal is lying in the premises of the police station. It is submitted that although the coal was seized but it was kept lying in the open in the premises of the police station, which was subjected to dust and rains, but later on the police has constructed a smart police station over the coal of the petitioner which was seized illegally and as such the impugned order dated 05.05.2018 may be set aside and the coal of the petitioner may be directed to be released. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 and has submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish necessary surety/bonds. It is submitted that in view of the above this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that in view of the above this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner has not produced any paper at the time of lodging F.I.R. and had failed to produce the valid papers when the coal of the petitioner was seized by the police. However, the petitioner while filing release petition has enclosed the paper of loaded coal which was issued on 17.04.2012 and wherein the weight of the loaded coal along with the weight of the Truck was mentioned as 24.900 MT. However, at the time of weighment by the department, the weight of the loaded coal along with the weight of the Truck has been found to be 31.800 MT coal. It is submitted that the purchase of the coal of the petitioner from M/s Prakash Associates, Barwadda, is suspicious. It is submitted that the Truck was loaded on 17.04.2012 from South Jharia Colliery from Prakash Associates, Barwadda and the raid was conducted on 02.5.2012, i.e. after approximately 15-days and which creates suspicion that the coal of the petitioner appears to be stolen coal. It is further submitted that the coal has been kept in old police station and photocopy of letter dated 15.10.2022 sent by Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Saraidhela P.S. Dhanbad to Smt. Mahua Palit, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has been enclosed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the learned Court below has rightly observed that the coal purchased on 17.04.2012 from Prakash Associates, Barwadda took almost 15 days to reach Hill Briquette, Bhuiphor. It is submitted that mere acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case does not prove that he has rightly purchased the coal in question and hence the impugned order passed by the learned Court below may be upheld and this criminal revision application may be dismissed. 6. Perused the records of this case and the first counter affidavit dated 23.09.2022 filed by the State and the supplementary counter affidavit dated 03.11.2022 filed on behalf of the State and the supplementary affidavit dated 06.12.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner and the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. Perused the records of this case and the first counter affidavit dated 23.09.2022 filed by the State and the supplementary counter affidavit dated 03.11.2022 filed on behalf of the State and the supplementary affidavit dated 06.12.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner and the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. The informant Manoj Kumar Gupta, then Officer-in-Charge, Saraidhela Police Station had seized the coal of the petitioner and lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioner, namely Raj Chouhan @ Karpoori and one Jairam Mahto, i.e. the Owner of the Truck on 02.05.2012 on the suspicion that the petitioner is involved in illegal transaction of coal and had conducted raid in the factory premises of late Jayantri Choudhary and had seized 31.800 MT coal, being weighed along with the weight of the truck and has further seized coal kept in the premises of the factory, which when weighed on three vacant Tractors, was found to be 7 Ton 900 kg coal. 8. It transpires from the record that the petitioner has faced trial in said Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 427 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1685 of 2012, T.R. No. 301 of 2018 and vide judgment dated 02.04.2018 passed by Shri Rajeev Ranjan, then learned C.J.M. Dhanbad, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad. The said judgment dated 02.04.2018, passed in G.R. No. 1685 of 2012, T.R. No. 301 of 2018, has been enclosed as Annexure-3. 9. It further appears from the revision application that the I.O. of this case has submitted its verification report on 21.06.2012 before the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad and has informed that the seized coal is suspected to be stolen. The said report dated 21.06.2012 is enclosed as Annexure 2 in this revision application. 10. From perusal of the report of the I.O. enclosed as Annexure, 2 it appears that the report dated 21.06.2012 was seen by the learned C.J.M. on 25.06.2012. In the report it is found that during investigation the coal was purchased from M/s Prakash Associates, Barwadda on 17.04.2012 which was sent to M/s Hill Briquettes Industries, Bhuiphore, Dhanbad by Truck No. JH 10 M-2815 and weight of the coal on said truck was 15.550 MT which was sold to the petitioner. In the report it is found that during investigation the coal was purchased from M/s Prakash Associates, Barwadda on 17.04.2012 which was sent to M/s Hill Briquettes Industries, Bhuiphore, Dhanbad by Truck No. JH 10 M-2815 and weight of the coal on said truck was 15.550 MT which was sold to the petitioner. Hence on 17.04.2012, when the purchased coal was sent from Barwadda to Hill Briquette factory, then arrival of coal in 15 days appears to be suspicious. He further stated in his report that the weight of the seized Truck along with the coal was 31,800 MT coal and the net weight of the coal was 22.450 MT coal after deducting the weight of the Truck. It has also come during the investigation that coal in question was loaded on 17.04.2012 on said Truck No. JH 10 M-2815, vide challan no 35031, dated 17.04.2012. Thus, even according to the report of the I.O. during police investigation it was found that petitioner has purchased the coal having gross weight of 24.900 MT vide challan no. 35031 and the net weight was 15.550 MT. It further transpires from the lower court record that the I.O. had submitted his report regarding the seized coal on 25.06.2012 itself before the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad and the matter remained pending so far as release of the coal is concerned. 11. It transpires that the petitioner had surrendered before the learned Court below and he had faced the trial and was acquitted vide judgment dated 02.4.2018 passed in connection with Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 427/2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1685 of 2012. 12. Thereafter the petitioner had filed a petition on 26.04.2018 for release of the coal, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 05.05.2018 by the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad. 13. Thereafter, the present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on 24.11.2018. 14. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 451 and Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. which deal with disposal of seized property in connection with trial, which are quoted as under: “451. 13. Thereafter, the present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on 24.11.2018. 14. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 451 and Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. which deal with disposal of seized property in connection with trial, which are quoted as under: “451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trail, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation: For the purposes of this section “property” includes: (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. 452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial: (1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. (2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. (3) A Court of Sessions may, instead of itself making an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459. (3) A Court of Sessions may, instead of itself making an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459. (4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-section (2), an order made under sub-section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of. (5) In this section, the term “property” includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.” 15. From the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. it is evident that it relates to order for custody and disposal of property during pendency of trial, whereas Section 452 Cr.P.C. relates to passing order for the disposal of property at the time of conclusion of trial. 16. In the present case, as the trial has already concluded vide judgment dated 02.04.2018 resulting into acquittal of the petitioner and as such provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. is not applicable in this case, however, Section 452 Cr.P.C. pertains to passing order for disposal of property by destruction, confiscation or delivery. 17. In the present case the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad was bound to pass necessary order at the time of conclusion of trial with regard to property seized by the police but no such order was passed and the learned C.J.M. ought to have passed order under Section 452 (2) Cr.P.C. for delivery of the property i.e. the coal in question, to the person without any condition or on condition by taking surety or without any surety and should have ordered for restoration of such property, but he failed to do so. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to file a petition on 26.04.2018 for release of the coal seized by the police on 02.5.2012. 18. It has been held in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 , Paragraph Nos. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to file a petition on 26.04.2018 for release of the coal seized by the police on 02.5.2012. 18. It has been held in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 , Paragraph Nos. 10 to 18 and Para 21 as under: “Para-10: To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest. Valuable articles and currency notes Para-11: With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest. Para-12: For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after: (1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles. (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial. (3) after taking proper security. Para-13: For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition. Para-14: In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the court may direct that such articles be handed back to the investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purposes of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed. Vehicles Para-15: Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, a number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to their owners or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the court at any point of time. Para-16: However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over the vehicle to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the persons concerned. Para-17: In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” Para 18: In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. Para 21: However, these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time of the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.” 19. It further transpires that this Court has directed the State to file the counter affidavit vide order dated 04.08.2022 and then the State had filed the counter affidavit on 23.09.2022 stating therein at Para 2 and 3 as follows: “Para 2: That the present affidavit is being filed on behalf of the State in pursuant to the direction by this Hon’ble Court that whether the truck along with coal has been released or not. Para 3: That vide letter dated 21.09.2022 issued by the officer-in-charge Saraidhela police station where is mentioned that as per Malkhana Register the said truck no JH-10M-2815 which has been seized by the concerned police station has been released.” 20. Para 3: That vide letter dated 21.09.2022 issued by the officer-in-charge Saraidhela police station where is mentioned that as per Malkhana Register the said truck no JH-10M-2815 which has been seized by the concerned police station has been released.” 20. Although, the case relates to the release of the coal in question but the State had filed counter affidavit only on the point of release of the Truck No. JH-10M-2815 in question and as such this Court had observed complete non-application of mind on the part of Police Administration of Dhanbad district and as such Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad along with Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station and the Sub-Inspector of Saraidhela Police Station were directed to remain physically present before this Court on 20.10.2022 and they were directed to file show cause. 21. Pursuant to Order dated 13.10.2022, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, Officer-in-Charge, Saraidhela and Sub-Inspector of Saraidhela Police Station were present before this Court on 20.10.2022 and it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that vide the counter affidavit filed by the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station that the seized coal was buried under the ground in the old premises of the concerned police station and as such the State was directed to file fresh counter affidavit by this Court. 22. Thereafter, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police on 17.10.2022. Due to typographical error on the part of the Personal Assistant concerned date has been shown as 4.11.2022. Filing of supplementary counter affidavit has been mentioned as 04.11.2022 instead of 17.10.2022 and the matter was heard and the personal appearance of the Senior Superintendent of Police and the other police officers was dispensed with by this Court. 23. It transpires from the supplementary counter affidavit dated 17.10.2022 filed on behalf of the State that the State has admitted the averments made in Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 of this Criminal Revision Application in which it was stated that the petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s Hill Briquette Plant situated at Bhuiphore, Saraidhela, Dhanbad and has got all valid papers to do the coal business. It is also admitted that the petitioner had validly purchased 24.900 MT coal from M/s Prakash Associates, Barwadda on 17.04.2012 and had purchased 9980 MT coal from M/s Om Prakash Baraiwala, Giridih on 29.04.2012 and 10000 Ton coal from M/s Bihar Traders, Ranchi and the said traders were running valid coal depot and purchasing the coals from M/s B.C.C.L. and M/s C.C.L. Thus, it would appear that the petitioner is a Purchaser of seized coal in question as it is even admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and it has also come even during police investigation. 24. This Court further finds that even in the counter affidavit filed on 17.10.2022 the State has enclosed the Letter No. 2111/22 dated 15.10.2022 by which it was sent by the Officer-in-Charge, Saraidhela Police Station to Ms. Mahua Palit, learned A.P.P. that the coal of the petitioner was kept and buried in the police station upon which building of new police station has been constructed and seized coal is buried in the premises of the police station and certain parts of which are visible. 25. On one hand the police had not only seized the coal of the petitioner on suspicion but has also kept the same buried while constructing the new police station causing huge loss to the petitioner but as well as the nation. 26. It transpires that the learned Court below has merely rejected the petition for release of the coal on the ground that it took 15 days from M/s Prakash Associates, Barwadda premises to the M/s Hill Briquette premises of the petitioner on suspicion. This observation of the Court below is apparently illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and shows complete non-application of mind. 27. Even the action of the police and its justification of seizing the coal by the police officers, including the Senior Superintendent of Police, shows high handedness and non-application of the mind of the police to humiliate and harass the petitioner. 28. 27. Even the action of the police and its justification of seizing the coal by the police officers, including the Senior Superintendent of Police, shows high handedness and non-application of the mind of the police to humiliate and harass the petitioner. 28. It transpires that the police authorities in the district of Dhanbad were and are very negligent as they have virtually made destruction of the coal of the petitioner which was seized from the factory premises of the present revisionist petitioner and virtually the coal has been dumped and buried and over is a Smart P.S. has been constructed, which fact has come in Letter No. 2111/2022 dated 15.10.2022 sent by Police Inspector-cum-Officer-In-Charge, Saraidhela P.S. to the learned A.P.P. enclosed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit dated 17.10.2022. 29. Although, the present case relates to the release of the coal in question but considering the fact that the action of the police has resulted into highhandedness and destruction of coal of the petitioner in question, this Court is of the view that a serious action may be taken against the erring police officials who are negligent and has caused loss to the petitioner. 30. It transpires that so far as the seized coal is concerned, the police administration acted contrary to the provisions of the Clause (h) and (m) of Rule 307 of Jharkhand Police Manual, which is quoted below for ready reference: “307. Malkhana Register: Clause (h) Perishable Property.-Orders shall be taken to convert perishable unclaimed property into cash at the earliest date the law allows. Clause (m) Malkhana items should be physically verified annually and a certificate to this effect should be given in the Malkhana Register accordingly. Inspecting Prosecutors like D.P. and Sr. D.P. should also make thorough verification of Malkhana items at the time of inspection of the Court Office.” 31. It further appears from supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 07.12.2022 that the petitioner had purchased the coal from the Vendors of M/s C.C.L. and M/s B.C.C.L. through valid papers and Challans and has enclosed the photocopies of invoices of challans marked as Annexure 4 series, however, the petitioner has not disclosed the details of the invoices and challans enclosed with the supplementary affidavit. 32. 32. From perusal of Annexure 4 series at Page 4, it appears that M/s B.C.C.L. had issued loading advice-cum-road challan on 16.04.2012 in favour of customer namely Prakash Associates, Barwadda with regard to 15.550 MT of coal on Truck No. Jh-10 M-2815 i.e. the Truck which was seized by the police from the premises of Hill View factory. The gross weight of the coal is 24.900 Mt and Tare weight of the Truck is 9.350 MT and Net weight appears as 15.550 MT on the challan dated 17.04.2012. Page 5 of the Annexure 4 series contains the report dated 18.06.2012 issued by weigh (illegible), in- charge........(illegible), Bastacola area........(illegible), which was issued on 18.06.2012 to Kara In-charge, Jhargara with respect to verification of Challan no. 350317 on the application dated 18.06.2012 sent by Subodh Kumar, i.e. the I.O., A.S.I. Saraidhela Police Station and it was also informed that Truck No. JH-10 M-2815 had gone to Spharia colliery for loading coal from Halgora weighbridge on 16.04.2012 and it was loaded vide challan no. 350317 through weighbridge having gross weight of 24.900, tare weight 9.350, Net weight 15.550 MT of article i.e. the coal and has been issued in the name of party Prakash Associates, Barwadda, Dhanbad. One retail invoice/cash memo dated 29.04.2012 has also been issued by M/s Bihar Coal Traders, Upper Bazar, Ranchi in favour of Hill Briquettes Industries, Bhuiphor, Saraidhela, Dhanbad i.e. the Firm of the petitioner with regard to 10.000 MT coal @ 27800 on payment of total Rs. 29,190/-. Photocopy of form B, transport challan dated 29.04.2012 has also been issued by the C.C.L. Giridih, B&K Area in the name of Bihar traders with regard to 10.000 MT coal. Photocopy of loading advice, road challan-cum-coal bill dated 23.4.2012 has also been issued by C.C.L. Giridih, B&K Area in favour of Bihar Coal Traders for its destination-Dhanbad, within Jharkhand with respect to 10.000 MT coal for an amount of Rs. 28,662/- has been issued and from which the petitioner has claimed to have received the coal. Apart from that the petitioner has also enclosed the photocopies of Form J VAT 504-P issued by C.C.L. illegible, in the name of Bihar Coal Traders, Ranchi. Photocopies of date of removal dated 29.04.2012 issued by C.C.L. Giridih to Bihar Coal Traders of amount of Rs. 28,662/- has also been enclosed. Apart from that the petitioner has also enclosed the photocopies of Form J VAT 504-P issued by C.C.L. illegible, in the name of Bihar Coal Traders, Ranchi. Photocopies of date of removal dated 29.04.2012 issued by C.C.L. Giridih to Bihar Coal Traders of amount of Rs. 28,662/- has also been enclosed. Photocopies of Balaji weighbridge showing weighment of 10.100 net weight of coal have also been enclosed as Annexure-4 series. 33. The petitioner has further enclosed the Form B Transport Challan issued by C.C.L. Giridih, B & K Area dated 29.04.2012 to Om Prakash, Bariawala with regard to 9.980 MT coal for its destination at Dhanbad within Jharkhand along with photocopy of challan showing date of removal 29.04.2012 of 9.980 MT coal on payment of Rs. 28,616.45/- which has been issued by C.C.L. Giridih in favour of one Om Prakash Basaiwala as part of Annexure-4 series. 34. The petitioner has further enclosed the retail invoice dated 29.4.2012 issued by Om Prakash Basaiwala to Hill Briquette Industries (i.e. the industry-factory premises of the petitioner Saraidhela Dhanbad) showing supply of said 9.980 MT coal on payment of Rs.29,969/- has also been enclosed as Annexure 4 series. 35. The petitioner has further enclosed the photocopies of loading advice, road challan-cum-coal bill along with Form J VAT 504 P issued by C.C.L. Giridih to Om Prakash Basaiwala, Giridih for supply of 9.980 MT coal on payment of Rs. 28,616.45/- paise have also been issued as Annexure 4 series. Therefore, it appears from Annexure-4 series that the petitioner had purchased the coal in question from M/s Prakash Industries, M/s Bihar Coal Traders and M/s Om Prakash Basaiwalla and who had purchased the said coal from B.C.C.L. Bastacola Dhanbad and C.C.L. Giridih, B & K Area Giridih. 36. It further reveals from the judgment dated 2.4.2018 passed by the learned Court below in T.R. No. 301/2018, arising out of Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 427 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1685 of 2012 that apart from the informant Manoj Kumar Gupta the State has examined only two witnesses and one of them was the driver of the police vehicle and the other was a member of the raiding party. However, the court has also observed that the I.O. of the case has not been examined and the case of the accused persons including the petitioner was prejudiced and seizure list witness was not examined which created doubt about the factum of seizure itself and has held that prosecution was not able to bring home the charges against the accused persons (including the petitioner) beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and the petitioner and the Driver Suraj Sinha @ Prasidh Sinha were acquitted by the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad. 37. In the conclusion, the impugned order dated 05.05.2018 passed by the learned C.J.M. Dhanbad in connection with the Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No. 427 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1685 of 2012 is set aside in the interest of justice and the learned Court below is directed to pass necessary order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the light of the judgment reported in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 by taking an appropriate bond/bank guarantee as well as securities for return of the said coal, if required at any point of time and shall direct the authority concerned to release the Coal in favour of the petitioner immediately. 38. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application is allowed with the observation made above. 39. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below.