Jharkhand High Court
Rohit Kumar Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 665 of 2020
Rohit Kumar Rai ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Rai, Adv.
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Adv.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the
parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
---
05/08.07.2021: Heard the parties.
It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that
vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-15S 8472 has been seized by the
police on 31.12.2019 on the allegation of carrying illegal govt. controlled
rice and accordingly, Deori P.S. Case No.163 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019
has been instituted.
It appears that the petitioner has moved a petition under Section
451 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle in question, which has been
rejected by the court below vide order dated 19.06.2020 and as against
that order, present criminal revision has been filed.
It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that
aforesaid commercial vehicle is lying in an open space and got it
deteriorated day by day and harming the interest of the petitioner, who
claims himself to be the owner of the said vehicle.
It has been further submitted, by referring to the order, that no
confiscation proceeding has been initiated till passing of the order
impugned. In spite of the said fact, vehicle has not been released, which
is nothing, but non exercising of power vested in the court below and this
is not permissible under law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujrat [(2002) 10 SCC 283].
On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for
release of the vehicle and submitted that he should be given an
opportunity of one week for getting the instruction in the matter. It has
been further submitted that the vehicle in question may be confiscated
under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and as such, if the
vehicle is released, the future interest of the State should be protected.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for State and perusing the record available, it appears that no
confiscation proceeding has been initiated, rather report dated 16.06.2020
has been submitted before the court below by the District Supply Officer,
Giridih. Relevant part of the report (Annexure-3) dated 16.06.2020, reads
as under:
1. Whether the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in
question?- Yes
2. Whether the documents relation to seized vehicle is valid and up-
to-date?-Yes
3. Whether the vehicle is required in investigation or not?-No.
4. Whether the confiscation case against the vehicle is started or not?-
Yes
5. Whether the I.O. has got any objection in releasing the vehicle in
question?-No
Annexure-2 dated 29.02.2020 also suggests that the Officer-in-
Charge of Deori P.S., Giridih has no objection with regard to release of
the vehicle. In view of the above reports, there was no occasion for the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, not to release the vehicle in favour of
the owner.
In view of the above discussions and the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih is directed to release the
vehicle, on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs.5,00,000 /- (Five Lac) within
two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order,
with stipulation that the petitioner will produce the vehicle as and when
required by the court below.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the order
dated 19.06.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in
connection with Deori P.S. Case No.163 of 2019 is hereby set aside.
Let a copy of this order be communicated forthwith to the court
concerned.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi/
