Barauni Kanpur Pipe Lines ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 734 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1959 of 2015
 
Revisionist :- Barauni Kanpur Pipe Lines I.O.C.Ltd.
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant revision has been referred with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order dated 27.04.2015, passed by the Session Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No. 659 of 2014 (State Vs. Nand Kishore Tripathi alias Guddu), whereby the application '4-Kha' moved by the opposite party no.2, Smt. Padma Tripathi, having power of attorney on behalf of her husband Nand Kishore Tripathi alias Guddu, in Case Crime No. 201 of 2014, under Sections 285, 379, 411 IPC, has been been allowed releasing the case property 'Mahindra Scorpio' No. UP78 CL-0172, in favour of opposite party no.2.

It would not serve the purpose to keep the matter pending as the question pertains with respect to releasing of the vehicle which is a case property. Hence the revision is being finally decided without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.

The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that a first information report was lodged on 28.06.2014 by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Maharajganj, District Kanpur Nagar, in respect of four different offences as Case Crime No. 201 of 2014, under Sections 285, 379, 411 IPC, Case Crime No. 202 of 2014, under Sections ¾ Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Case Crime No. 203 of 2014, under Sections 15(2) and 15(4) of Petroleum and Mineral Pipe Line Act and Case Crime No. 204 of 2014, under Section ¾ of Explosive Substance Act 1983.

In the aforesaid cases, nine persons are named, who have committed theft of 20,000(Twenty Thousand) liter diesel, amounting Rs. 1300000 (Thirteen Lacs) by cutting Barauni Kanpur underground cross country petroleum product pipeline, which runs from Barauni Kanpur to other State through various districts in Uttar Pradesh. Causing destruction to pipeline is not only loss of petroleum but a serious offence under the petroleum and Minerals Pipline Act 1962, where punishment is provided upto life. The offence is cognizable and bailable. The husband of opposite party no.2 namely Nand Kishore Tripath alias Guddu, was also involved in the above said cases and the said vehicle 'Mahindra Scorpio' was being used in the commission of offence and was siezed on the spot alongwith one Motorcycle. A recovery memo was also prepared pursuant to the first information report dated 28.06.2014 in respect of four different case crime numbers.

The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party no.2 has moved an application '4-Kha' for release of the said vehicle 'Mahindra Scorpio' on 06.02.2014 only in one case crime number 201 of 2014, before the court of learned Sessions Judge and the court below without giving any opportunity to the revisionist has passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2015, allowing the application for releasing the vehicle in her favour, whereas the revisionist is the actual victim of the said crime, as the husband of opposite part no.2 and other accused persons were arrested from the spot who were involved in committing theft of 20,000 liter diesel, of highly inflammable diesel by cutting the underground pipeline and the Scorpio was seized filled with diesel. The vehicle in question should have been released taking into account of the gravity of all the offences, but the said vehicle was released taking into account of only one case crime no. 201 of 2014. One Motorcycle, which was also involved in the said crime has also been released prior to passing the impugned order dated 27.04.2015, without giving any opportunity to the revisionist.

It has further been pointed out by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the court below has committed manifest error in releasing the vehicle in question in favour of opposite party no.2 which was involved in three other case crime numbers registered on 26.08.2014 against all the accused named in the first information report, but the application was moved by the opposite party no.2 only in one case crime no. 201 of 2014, under Section 285, 379, 411 IPC and as such the releasing order of the said vehicle, without taking into account its involvement in other case crime numbers in same FIR, is not sustainable in the eye of law and same is liable to be set-aside.

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that market value of vehicle 'Mahindra Scorpio' was being assessed by the court below only 5 lacs, where the actual market value of the same was more than above Rs. 10 lacs. There are chances that said vehicle will be misused by the accused persons by interpolating the nature of the vehicle.

He further submits that before releasing the said vehicle no opportunity of hearing was give to the revisionist, who is an aggrieved person. In view of amendment brought w.e.f. 31.12.2009 in the code of criminal procedure "Victim" has been defined in Section 2 and inserted (wa) which means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. The revisionist is the victim of the crime in question and without inviting objection from interested, victim or aggrieved party the order releasing the vehicle is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.

Per contra learned AGA submits that the court below has passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2015 after taking into account of entire facts and circumstances, imposing conditions that the nature of said vehicle will not be changed and as and when vehicle is required, the same shall be produced before the court.

Having considered the entire facts and circumstances and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA, the incident had taken place near Ghatu Khada Nahar Puliya, where the accused persons were found committing theft of 20,000(Twenty Thousand) liter diesel, amounting Rs. 1300000 (Thirteen Lacs) by cutting Barauni Kanpur underground cross country petroleum product pipeline, which runs from other different districts of the State. The husband of opposite party no.2 namely Nand Kishore Tripath alias Guddu alongwith other named accused persons were involved in the said crime alongwith the said vehicle 'Mahindra Scorpio'.

The revisionist is an authorised Signatory and Deputy Manager of Barauni Kanpur Pipe, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the said Kanpur pipeline transports highly inflammable High Speed Disel (HSD), Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) and Motor Spirit (MS) at very high pressure having its mother pump station at Barauni. In such circumstances the revisionist may be given an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order of releasing the vehicle 'Mahindra Scorpio', who is the victim of the said crime committed by the accused persons in view of Section 2 (wa) of the Code. Thus the order has been passed by the court below merely on the basis of an application '4-Kha' moved by the opposite party no.2, Smt. Padma Tripathi, having a power of attorney on behalf of co-accused Nand Kishore Tripathi alias Guddu, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the revisionist.

In view of the above, conspectus, the order dated 27.05.2015, passed by the Session Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No. 659 of 2014 (State Vs. Nand Kishore Tripathi alias Guddu), is hereby set-aside. The court below is directed to pass a fresh order on the application '4-Kha' moved by the opposite party no.2, by evaluating the material and documents taking into account the gravity of offence and the seizure of vehicle in other cases also, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. The court below shall decide the release application without being influenced by any observation made herein above touching the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observation, the revision is disposed of.

Order Date :- 28.5.2015/VKG