Allowed

Geeta Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 May 2015Cr.M.P./2847/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed orders refusing release of a seized tractor. Directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to release the vehicle to the petitioner's satisfaction, the bench relied on prior precedent allowing release despite pending confiscation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the Central and Sessions Judge orders; directed release of the petitioner's tractor JH 05 AP-3877.

Geeta Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 2847 of 2014

¶3

Geeta Devi wife of Sri Jaleshwar Singhdeo Resident of vill-Iccha, P.O. Iccha, P.S. Iccha, District Saraikela ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opp. Party

¶4

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR

¶5

............

¶6

For the Petitioner : M/s Prashant Pallav, Satish Kumar Deo For the State : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, A.P.P.

¶7

7/12.05.2015 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.04.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in G.R. No. 1042 of 13, whereby and whereunder, he refused to release the vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration No. JH 05 AP-3877 along with trolly. Petitioner further prays for quashing the order dated 9^th of May 2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharsawan in Cr. Revision No. 26 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, he dismiss the revision application and affirmed the aforesaid order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶8

It appears that on 01.11.2013, petitioner's tractor loaded with sand was seized by the informant. Accordingly, seizure list prepared. It is pertinent to mention that along with the tractor of this petitioner, tractor of two other persons namely Rajendra Gope @ Rajendra Gwala and Ugranath Tiwari were also seized by the informant. It further appears that tractors of aforesaid two co-accused already released by orders as contained in Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 to the I.A. No. 39 of 2015.

¶9

From perusal of impugned orders I find that petitioner's tractor has not been released on the plea that a confiscation proceeding under Section 21 clause 4 A of the M.M.D.R. Act is under contemplation. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Biva Jha versus The State of Jharkhand (Cr. M.P. No. 3095 of 2013) a Bench of this Court has held that there is no provision in the M.M.D.R. Act which prevents the Court from releasing the vehicle, if confiscation proceeding is pending. It reveals from the impugned orders that on the date of passing of impugned orders, confiscation proceeding was not pending, rather it was under contemplation. Under the said circumstance, case of petitioner is on better footing with that

¶10

of Biva Jha case. It further appears from Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 of I.A. No. 39 of 2015 that different Benches of this Court have released the vehicle of co-accused seized in this case and the case of this petitioner stands on similar footing.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this application and quash the impugned orders dated 01.04.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in G.R. No. 1042 of 13 and 9^th of May 2014, passed by Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharsawan in Cr. Revision No. 26 of 2014, and direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella to release the petitioner's tractor bearing registration No. JH 05 AP-3877 to his own satisfaction.

¶12

Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of petitioner.

¶13

(Prashant Kumar, J.)

¶14

Binit

Geeta Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mozibur Sheikh and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Manjoor Alam and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Madhuri Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

MD Gufran Anjum Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunil Kumar Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand