Allowed

Mangluram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2015CRMP/583/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed criminal revision to direct release of 187 bags of seized perishable paddy to the petitioner upon furnishing surety of Rs.50,000/-, holding no investigation purpose served by retaining goods in police custody.

What did the court decide?

Held that 187 bags of paddy to be handed over to the petitioner on sandurdama on furnishing surety of Rs.50,000/- before the Trial Court.

Mangluram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CR.M.P. No. 583 of 2015

¶5

Mangluram, S/o. Shri Ghasiram Sahu, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village & Post Matiya, Thana Gidhouri, Civil and Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, Balodabazar Bhatapara, Distt. Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board

¶12

07/09/2015

¶13

This petition is against the order dated 27/05/2015, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Criminal Revision No.H-34/2015, whereby the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol dated 17.04.2015, in Criminal Case No.S-34/2015, has been affirmed.

¶14

Brief facts of the case is that a case was registered under Section 1+4/379 of I.P.C. after seizure of paddy of 187 bags. It is contended that the petitioner has purchased the said paddy of 187 bags from Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti, Katgi and despite the fact that the petitioner is holding the valid documents of purchase of paddy, the same is withheld and on application being filed to get the possession of the same, it was dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no purpose would be served if the paddy is kept in the police custody and in open as it will

¶16

Page No.2

¶17

be destroyed completely. Therefore, the petitioner being the owner of the same, the same may be handed over as the goods are in perishable in nature.

¶18

The State counsel submits that according to the case diary, the goods was purchased from Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti, Katgi and on the memorandum of the driver the seizure was made on 02.04.2015.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶20

Perusal of the order shows that refusal was on the ground that since the matter is being investigated by the Kashdol Police, therefore, the custody can not be given.

¶21

Having perused the order of the Court below in the opinion of this Court, since at this point this fact is not disputed by State that the petitioner has purchased the paddy of 180 bags from Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti, Katgi, therefore, taking into the fact, the nature of the goods, which are perishable in nature, no purpose would be served to keep the same in the police custody as it is in perishable in nature. Therefore, considering the fact of this case, the petition is allowed. It is directed that the property in question i.e. 187 bags of paddy be handed over to the petitioner on supurdnama on furnishing surety of Rs.50,000/- before the Trial Court of its satisfaction.

¶22

With such direction, the petition stands disposed off.

¶23

Sd/(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶24

Balram

Mangluram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangluram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Tikariya and Ors. Vs Ranjit Singh Bindra

Naki Emam Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Imran Vs Anand Agrwal And Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Suresh Chandra Agrawal

Shri Shiv Ram Vs Shri Banafer Sahu and Ors.

Vijay Behera Vs State Of Chhattisgarh