Sub Area Manager, Gowari Sub Area, Wcl Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur and Anothr.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:315

Judgment

1

339 wp107.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.107 OF 2023

¶7

Sub Area Manager,
Gowari Sub Area, WCL,
Occ.-Service, r/o Dhoptala Colony,
Q.No.D-2, GM Complex, tahsil-Rajura,
district Chandrapur. ….. Petitioner.

¶8

:: V E R S U S ::

¶9

1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station-Rajura,
district Chandrapur.

¶10

2. Abhinav Kumar Motilal Tiwari,
age-major, occupation-private,
r/o Lokmanya Tilak Ward,
Ballarpur, tahsil Ballarpur,
.
district Chandrapur. ….. Respondent
===============================
Shri Y.P.Bage, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri C.A.Lokhande, Additional Public Prosecutor for
Respondent No.1/State.
Shri A.S.Ambatkar, Counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶11

===============================

¶12

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 06/01/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13/01/2025

¶13

JUDGMENT

.....2/-

2

Judgment

339 wp107.23

1. Heard learned counsel Shri Y.P.Bage for the

¶19

petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri
C.A.Lokhande for respondent No.1/State, and learned
counsel Shri A.S.Ambatkar for respondent No.2.

¶20

2. RULE .

¶21

3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an appropriate

¶22

writ or direction to quash and set aside order dated
27.9.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in

¶23

Criminal Revision No.19/2022 by which order dated
4.4.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Rajura in OMCA No.46/2022 handing over custody of seized
coal to respondent No.2 on Supratnama was maintained.

¶24

4. Facts of the case are as follows:

¶25

On 4.2.2022, one Niranjan Patil, working as Security

¶26

Guard in WCL at Gowari Check Post No.1, received a phone

¶27

call from another Security Guard informing that one truck

.....3/-

Judgment

3

339 wp107.23

bearing registration No.MH-40-Y-4314 was found

¶33

transporting coal without making an entry at the Check Post.
On interception of the said truck, truck driver left the truck
on the spot and ran away. It was revealed that the truck
driver was taking away coal stolen from the WCL
approximately 20 tons and, therefore, the said truck was
brought to the Rajura Police Station and a report was
lodged.

¶34

5.After registration of the crime, respondent No.2
preferred an application for grant of the seized coal on
Supratnama before learned JMFC, Rajura on 22.3.2022
thereby claimed ownership of the seized coal weighing 20
tons and contended that due to the seizure of the coal, he
has sustained loss. He has also placed on record some
receipts. After considering relevant papers, learned
Magistrate allowed the application by granting the seized
coal to respondent No.2.

.....4/-

Judgment

339 wp107.23

4

6.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order,
the petitioner preferred a revision before learned Sessions
Judge, Chandrapur on ground that during investigation, it
revealed that truck driver has stolen the coal from the WCL
and was transporting the same by hiding original
registration number of the truck and affixing a forged
number plate on the said truck. As per contention of the
petitioner, original registration number of the truck is MH-
29-T-0379. Whereas, forged number plate affixed was MH-
40-Y-4314. It was further alleged that some bogus receipts

¶40

were prepared on the basis of which relief of releasing of the
coal was obtained. It was further the contention that, every
truck passes through the Mine Area has to pass through
Entry Gate and Check Post whereat every truck has to show
Delivery Order or Gate-Pass so as to enter or exit the
premises. The truck driver was not having Gate-Pass. He
had not produced any Delivery Order so as to show that the
truck was legally carrying the coal out of the Mining Area.

.....5/-

Judgment

339 wp107.23

5

These facts were not considered either by learned Magistrate

¶46

or Sessions Judge.

¶47

Hence, this petition.

¶48

7. The petition is strongly opposed by learned counsel

¶49

for respondent No.2 on ground that the said coal was
purchased by him from supplier of coal i.e. “Piyush Jain”
who runs “Purav Coal Carriers”. The bills issued by “Piyush
Jain” also show that the said coal was sold to respondent
No.2 which was transported at the relevant time and the
truck was intercepted when it was proceeding. The trial
court and appellate court have rightly considered that no
material is produced to show that the coal belongs to the
WCL and, therefore, no interference is called for.

¶50

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

¶51

supported the contentions of the petitioner and submitted
that the truck was found transporting the coal illegally by
affixing the forged number plate.

.....6/-

Judgment

339 wp107.23

6

9.Having heard both sides and perused the record

¶57

available, it reveals that the crime is registered at Rajura
Police Station on the basis of report lodged by Niranjan Patil
alleging that one Kumar Ramaswamy Roda, Praveen
Sonone, and Pratap Sanap serving as Security Guards were
deputed at Gowari Check Post No.1 for inspection of
vehicles. At about 11:20 pm, he received a phone call of
Ramaswamy Roda that when he was inspecting vehicles,
one truck was found proceeding without making any entry
on the Check Post and eloping from the spot and, therefore,
he intercepted the said truck at a distance of 100 meters.
On intercepting the truck, the truck driver ran away from
the spot. After receipt of the information, he immediately
rushed to the Govari Check Post and found the truck bearing
registration No.MH-40-Y-4314 transporting 20 tons of coal in

¶58

the said truck. He brought the said truck to the police
station. On the basis of the said report, the police registered
the crime. On registration of the crime, spot panchanama

.....7/-

Judgment

339 wp107.23

7

was drawn. The said spot was at Govari Colony Check Post
No.1.

¶64

10. It further revealed during the investigation that
original registration number of the said truck was MH-29-T-
0379 which was hid by affixing a forged number plate
bearing No.MH-40-Y-4314. The agreement and registered
documents of purchase of the vehicle show that the truck
bears registration number as MH-29-T-0379.

¶65

11. The duty chart was also collected by the Investigating
Officer which shows that Security Guards namely Kumar
Ramaswamy Roda, Praveen Sonone, and Pratap Sanap were
on duty at the relevant time. The statements of these
persons were also recorded, which also substantiate the said
contention.

¶66

12. Respondent No.2 came with a case that the coal was
purchased by him from one “Piyush Jain”. During further
investigation, statement of said “Piyush Jain” was recorded

.....8/-

Judgment

339 wp107.23

8

and he stated that on 3.2.2022 respondent No.2 had

¶72

purchased 21.550 tons coal from him. The investigation as
to GST Registration was also carried out and it revealed that

¶73

“Piyush Jain” was registered at CGST. However, respondent
No.2 was not registered at CGST. As per the investigation,
said “Piyush Jain” has purchased the said coal from
“Shubham Enterprises” on 5.8.2022 vide Invoice No.361 and
from “Priya Enterprises” vide Invoice No.76 on 29.7.2021.

¶74

13. Thus, the communication placed on record shows
that vide No.361, the coal was purchased by “Piyush Jain”
after the incident. Whereas, vide Invoice No.76, the coal
was purchased much prior to the incident. At the relevant
time, “Piyush Jain” had purchased the said coal either from

¶75

“Shubham Enterprises” or “Priya Enterprises”. But, no
document was filed on record.

¶76

14. The weighing receipts which are placed record show
quantity purchased by respondent No.2 from “Piyush Jain”

.....9/-

Judgment

339 wp107.23

9

was 21.550 tons worth of Rs.87,816/-. Whereas, as per the

¶82

spot panchanama, the seized coal was 20 tons worth of
Rs.30,000/-.

¶83

15. Thus, considering the fact that there is no material on
record to show that on 3.2.2022 or prior to that from any
agency said “Piyush Jain” has obtained any coal and it was
sold out to respondent No.2. The receipts collected show
that he has purchased the coal from one “Shubahm
Enterprises” after the incident i.e. on 5.8.2022 and from

¶84

“Priya Enterprises” much prior to the incident. The
statement of said “Piyush Jain” shows that he used to
purchase the coal from the WCL or from any other dealers.
As far as purchase of coal from the WCL is concerned, no
document is placed on record in the nature of any
bills/delivery/challan. There is no document on record also
to show that prior to 3.2.2022 he has purchased the said
coal either from the “WCL” or “Shubham Enterprises” or

.....10/-

Judgment

10

339 wp107.23

“Priya Enterprises”. As per his statement, the said coal was
loaded in truck bearing MH-29-T-0379. However, at the

¶90

relevant time, number appearing of the truck was MH-40-Y-
4314.

¶91

There should be nexus between the receipts produced and the goods recovered. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property such as for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or tria l, to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think necessary. Powers under the said Section should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously.

¶92

The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down principles in respect of property pending trial. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶93

held that Section 451 of the Code clearly empowers the 1 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 363

.....11/-

11

Judgment

339 wp107.23

court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such
property, such as (1) for the proper custody pending
conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (2) to order it to be sold or
otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it
think necessary; and (3) if the property is subject to speedy
and natural decay, to dispose of the same.

¶99

For this purposes, if material on record indicates
that such articles belong to complainant at whose house
theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, seized articles be
handed over to the complainant after preparing detailed
proper panchanama of such articles and taking photographs
of such articles and a bond that such articles would be
produced if required at the time of trial and after taking
proper security.

¶100

For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure
of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as
provided under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal

.....12/-

Judgment

12

339 wp107.23

Procedure. The bond and security should be taken so as to
prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The
Court should see that photographs or 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
the said Section to impose any other appropriate condition.

¶106

In the present case, custody of the coal is claimed by respondent No.2 as well as by the petitioner. On going through facts of the case, it would be the matter of evidence whether seized coal belongs to the petitioner or respondent No.2. On the basis of the evidence, it can be established that who is the owner of the said article. Moreover, the said article is not subject for speedy or natural decay. As there is a dispute as to the ownership of the said coal, while considering application under Section 451 of the Code, the court has to follow procedure by recording the evidence or it

.....13/-

Judgment

339 wp107.23

13

would be the subject of final disposal of the case after
establishing on the basis of the evidence that who is the
owner of the said coal.

¶112

Section 452 of the Code takes care of situation which

¶113

deals with orders for disposal of the property at conclusion
of trial. Therefore, 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.

¶114

Thus, for ascertaining, who is owner of the article seized, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 of the Code. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs or such

.....14/-

Judgment

14

339 wp107.23

articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant,
accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is
handed over. It would be function of the court under Section
451 of the Code to impose any other appropriate condition.

¶120

Here, in the present case, neither learned Magistrate nor learned Sessions Judge considered the procedure suggested by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat supra and considering the petitioner failed to contest the application, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to learned Magistrate, Rajura who shall follow the procedure given by giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to respondent 2 to adduce evidence to claim the right over the property and on establishing the ownership over the said property, pass appropriate orders by imposing the appropriate conditions.

.....15/-

Judgment

339 wp107.23

15

In the light of above observations, I proceed to pass

¶126

following order:

¶127

ORDER

¶128

(1) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.

¶129

(2) The order dated 4.4.2022 passed below Exhibit-1 by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajura in OMCA
No.46/2022 and order 27.9.2022 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application
No.19/2022 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶130

(3) The application filed by respondent No.2 for claiming
the custody of coal is remanded back to learned Magistrate,
Rajura for reconsideration. Learned Magistrate shall
reconsider the application in the light of guidelines issued by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal

¶131

Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2003 ALL MR (Cri) 363).

.....16/-

Judgment

339 wp107.23

16

(4) Learned Magistrate shall dispose of the said application
expeditiously.

¶137

With these directions, the Writ Petition stands

¶138

disposed of.

¶139

 (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶140

!! BrWankhede !!

¶141

...../-

Sub Area Manager, Gowari Sub Area, Wcl v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur and Anothr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sub Area Manager, Gowari Sub Area, Wcl v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur and Anothr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvesh S/O Sudhakar Anasane Vs Sharddha Sarvesh Anasane

Nasreen Began Nasir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Malkapur City Buldhana and Another

Dinesh S/O Pratap Lilhare vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Bajaj Nagar Nagpur and Another

Shri. Ravindra S/O Prabhakarrao Deogade vs Smt. Priyanka @ Pooja W/O Ravindra Deogade (Ku Priyanka D/O Ganshyamji Kherde) and Another

Monu @ Naushad Shaikh Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Kanhan Dist. Nagpur and Another.

Shashank S/O Vijayrao Datey Vs Ratika W/O Shashank Datey