Orissa High Court
Rajesh Kumar Tantia vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 27 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4046 of 2025
Rajesh Kumar Tantia ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
M/s. Sudipta Kumar Das,
Kaushik Mukherjee,
Gopal Prasad Jena, Rasmi
Ranjan Das
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
27.10.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the application as
well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application, the Petitioner seeks to
invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 528 of
Cr.P.C., which corresponds to Section 482 of Cr.P.C., thereby
challenging the impugned judgment dated 14th July 2025 passed by
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal
Revision No.45 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on the basis
of an F.I.R. lodged before the Jagatpur Police Station which was
registered as Jagatpur P.S. Case No.7 dated 09.01.2025, a case was
registered against the Petitioner for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 318(4)/ 336(3)/ 336(4)/ 345(3)/ 61(2)/
348/ 347(1)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 63 of the
Copyright Act, 1957. As per the allegation made by the Informant
before the Inspector In-Charge of Jagatpur Police Station, Cuttack,
the accused-person infringed the copyrights of the Informant in the
manner and mode as has been described in the F.I.R. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner filed
an application before the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack, before whom
the G.R. Case No.20 of 2025 is pending, with a prayer under
Section 457 of Cr.P.C., corresponding to 503 of B.N.S.S., 2023
with a prayer to release the seized material in his favour and
unlock/reopen his firm known M/s. Utkal Distributers. Learned
J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack, vide order dated 06.03.2025 at Annexure-8,
rejected the prayer of the Petitioner on the ground that the Judicial
Magistrate First Class does not have any power to pass any order
under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the immovable property
which was locked up for being seized during investigation. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2025, the Petitioner
has preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack
which was registered as Criminal Revision No.45 of 2025.
Eventually, the same was transferred to the court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Cuttack, after hearing the Criminal Revision No.45 of 2025
and finally vide judgment dated 14.07.2025, rejected the prayer of
the Petitioner on the grounds mentioned in paragraph-6 of the
order dated 14.07.2025.
5. On perusal of the paragraph-6 of the order dated 14.07.2025,
it appears that the Petitioner has failed to prove that he is the
rightful owner of the property that has been seized in connection
with this case and that he had acquired such property through a
Power of Attorney of the M/s. Utkal Distributers. It has been
observed that the Petitioner has failed to produce a copy of the
Power of Attorney before the learned court below. It has also been
observed that the Petitioner has failed to produce any materials to
prove his ownership of the property in question. Accordingly, the
revision petition was dismissed thereby confirming the order dated
06.03.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the Power of Attorney, which has been filed along with
the revision petition, which has been annexed as Annexure-4. He
further submitted that there are other materials to prove the right of
the Petitioner over the property. Ultimately, learned counsel for
the Petitioner contended that all these materials have not been
considered by the learned trial court. Therefore, the order dated
06.03.2025 as well as the judgment dated 14.07.2025 passed by the
revisional court are unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the
same should be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended
that the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack as well as the 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Cuttack has not committed any illegality in
passing the impugned order. He further submitted that since the
Petitioner had failed to establish his right over the property in
question, the learned court below has not committed any illegality
in refusing the relief prayed for by the Petitioner in his petition. In
such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended
that the present application being devoid of merit is not
maintainable and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both the
sides and on a careful examination of the materials on record as
well as the background facts, this Court found that both the learned
courts below have rejected the application of the Petitioner filed
under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Petitioner has
failed to establish the right over the property. It is the settled
position of law that on an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.,
the Petitioner has to establish his right over the property in the
event the Petitioner claims for interim release of such seized
property in his favour. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, this Court found that he has filed a copy of the Power of
Attorney and other documents which were placed before the trial
court at the time of consideration of his application under Section
457 of Cr.P.C.
9. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the
Petitioner should be given another opportunity to place the
materials before the learned trial court for just and fair
consideration of his application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. In
such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 14th July 2025
passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal
Revision No.45 of 2025 is hereby set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack to reconsider the
matter after taking into consideration the documents to be filed by
the Petitioner in support of his contention i.e. regarding his right of
ownership over the seized property. Accordingly, Petitioner is
granted liberty to file a fresh application along with all supporting
documents within three weeks from today. In such eventuality,
learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack shall do well to dispose of such
application within a period of six weeks thereafter, after providing
opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
