Allowed

Abhishek Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2021Cr.Rev./890/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed regarding the release of a commercial vehicle seized during a case involving illegal government rice. The High Court allowed the revision, quashing the lower court's order, and directed the release of the vehicle upon furnishing an indemnity bond after noting that no confiscation proceedings had been initiated.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner's vehicle upon furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- within two weeks and production of the vehicle as required.

Abhishek Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 890 of 2020

¶3

Abhishek Kumar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Rai, Adv. For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Adv. ---

¶4

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶5

¶6

05/08.07.2021: Heard the parties.

¶7

It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that vehicle bearing Registration No.JH-01 AQ 2221 has been seized by the police on 19.05.2020 on the allegation of carrying illegal govt. controlled rice and accordingly, Deori P.S. Case No.96 of 2020 dated 19.05.2020 has been instituted.

¶8

It appears that the petitioner has moved a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle in question, which has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 16.10.2020 and as against that order, present criminal revision has been filed.

¶9

It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid commercial vehicle is lying in an open space and got it deteriorated day by day and harming the interest of the petitioner, who claims himself to be the owner of the said vehicle.

¶10

It has been further submitted, by referring to the order, that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated till passing of the order impugned. In spite of the said fact, vehicle has not been released, which is nothing, but non exercising of power vested in the court below and this is not permissible under law.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujrat [(2002) 10 SCC 283].

¶12

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle. It has been further submitted that the vehicle in question may be confiscated under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and as such, vehicle should be released only after securing the future interest of the State.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for State and perusing the record available, it appears that no

¶14

confiscation proceeding has been initiated, rather report dated 30.09.2020 submitted before the court below by the Officer-in-Charge, Deori P.S., Giridih. Relevant part of the report (Annexure-2) dated 30.09.2020, reads as under:

¶15

1- vfHk"ksd dqekj is0 Hkqus'oj lkg lk0 pdkbZ cktkj Fkkuk pdkbZ ftyk teqbZ] fcgkj dk.M esa tIr okgu la0-&JH01AQ-2221 psfpl la0 MAT455020B8H34553 batu ua0&497SPTC39HYY641358 ds jftLVMZ ekfyd gSaA bUgha ds uke ls okgu iathd`r gSA

¶16

2- tIr okgu ds lacaf/kr okgu ds ewy nLrkost okgu ds ekfyd }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ftldk lR;kiu fd;k x;k gSA tIr okgu ds ekfyd }kjk izLrqr Certificate of Registration esa okgu ds ekfyd dk uke ABHISHEK KUMAR S/O BHUNESHWAR SAH C/O PRAKASH PD 59 RAMUVA PO-VISHNUGARH PS-BISHNUGARH HAZARIBAGH, 825313 vafdr gSA okgu ls lacaf/kr dkxtkr lgh gSA

¶17

3- tIr okgu dh vuqla/kku esa dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA

¶18

4- gk¡ okgu la0&JH01AQ-2221 dks dk.M esa tIr fd;k x;k gSA

¶19

5- tIr okgu la0&JH01AQ-2221 dks dk.M esa tIr fd;k x;k gSA

¶20

6- gk¡] tIr okgu dk iz;ksx dk.M esa fd;k x;k gSA

¶21

7- tIr okgu dks eqDr djus esa vuqla/kkudÙkkZ dks dksbZ vifÙk ugha gSA

¶22

Annexure-2 dated 30.09.2020, suggests that the Officer-inCharge, Deori P.S., Giridih has no objection with regard to release of the vehicle. In view of the above report and non-initiation of confiscation proceeding, there was no occasion for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, not to release the vehicle in favour of the owner.

¶23

In view of the above discussions and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih is directed to release the vehicle, on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs.5,00,000 /- (Five Lac) within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, with stipulation that the petitioner will produce the vehicle as and when required by the court below.

¶24

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 16.10.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in connection with Deori P.S. Case No.96 of 2020 is hereby set aside.

¶25

Let a copy of this order be communicated forthwith to the court concerned.

¶26

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶27

Ravi/

Abhishek Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Kumar 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

Ravi Mehta Alias Ravi Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narain Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Kumar Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukesh Kumar Yadav Alias Sukesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhay Bharadwaj Alias Abhay Giri Vs the State of Jharkhand