In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner challenged the Sessions Judge's refusal to interfere with an order rejecting his request for release of a seized vehicle. The petition was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2011 is affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1581 of 2011
Ravi Raj Pandey … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : None For the State : None -----
No one appears on behalf of the parties.
Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2011 was preferred by the petitioner before the court of Sessions, Bokaro challenging the order dated 01.07.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in relation to the aforesaid case, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for release of the seized vehicle having Registration No. WB-02D-2565 was rejected.
The learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro vide order dated 09.08.2011 while dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner held as under:
“After carefully going through the materials available in the record, I have no hesitation in holding that as the revisionist/petitioner is claiming ownership of the seized property on the basis of the documents, which were found to be forged by no less a person than the District Transport Officer, Bokaro himself. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, the revisionist/petitioner can be the person entitled to possession thereof at least till disposal of the case. Under such circumstances, the act of the learned court below in rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicle in favour of the revisionist/petitioner cannot be termed illegal or suffering from any procedural irregularity leading to miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this revision being without any merit is dismissed.”
I see no infirmity in the aforesaid order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2011, refusing to interfere with the order dated 01.07.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
Thus, the present Cr.M.P. being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge refusing to interfere with the order rejecting release of seized property warrants interference in this high court.
Ravi Raj Pandey
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
