Allowed

Sanjay Kumar Jain v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Apr 2023Cr.M.P./697/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's plea for the release of seized LPG cylinders. Citing Section 451 CrPC and the risk of decay, the court ordered the release of 305 cylinders to the petitioner subject to an indemnity bond and affdavit conditions, retaining one cylinder as evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the petition for release of 305 LPG cylinders was quashed, and they were released to the petitioner on security terms, with one cylinder retained for evidence.

Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 697 of 2015

¶3

Sanjay Kumar Jain ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. ------

¶4

07/ 19.04.2023 Heard Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶5

This petition has been filed for quashing of the part of the order dated 28.01.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, SeraikellaKharsawan, in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2014, by which he has been pleased to affirm the order dated 10.09.2014, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella, in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No. 20 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 660 of 2014, whereby the learned court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for release of 306 LPG cylinders of Indian Oil Corporation Limited in favour of the petitioner, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella.

¶6

The prosecution case is based on the written report of one Yogendra Prasad Sharma, Block Supply Officer, Gamahariya addressed to O/C Kandra P.S on 3/7/14 alleging that as many as 306 L.P.G cylinders each containing 14.2 K.G had to go from Indian Oil Bottling Plant, Gamharia to Kumardungi (Chaibasa) on truck no. JH 02F 2014 through Nirmal Transport under Challan No. 671557417 but its driver Amarjeet Singh had taken the said truck on different way and he parked the said truck at Football Ground situated at Chowka Kandra Road near Mandal Hotel. It is further alleged that as many an 216 cylinders were unloaded from the truck for the purpose of cutting it. The police team caught the accused Amarjeet Singh and found 15 cylinders which were cut and they were further being loaded by the driver. On information the informant reached at the place of occurrence and found as many as 290 cylinders which were sealed and as many as 16 cylinders which were found unsealed. The informant also found that as many as six commercial cylinders of Hindustan Petroleum, they were found after filling the gas and three cylinders were found while the accused was in process of filling. The informant also found sealing tag of Indian Oil Company, one gas oven, one gas pipe, one pot and two mobiles which were according seized

¶7

-2-

¶8

and seizure list was prepared.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s Nirmal Transport and owner of truck No. JH-02-F-2014. He further submits that the petitioner has been granted transportation contract under Public Tender No. BSO/LPGBP/PT/3/PKDTPT-2012-15 dated 04.05.2012 for to and fro transportation of packed LPG cylinders and pressure regulators by road from Jamshedpur Bottling Plant to various distributors of different markets by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), Patna on 29.09.2012. He further submits that the petitioner also submitted the details of 20 trucks, which were finalized in the tender to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Patna for the purpose of transportation of LPG cylinders. He further submits that the cylinders were being transported under computer generated challan, but the same was seized by the police on 03.07.2014 on his way and the driver Amarjeet Singh was arrested and the instant case was instituted. He further submits that in the contract, it has been provided that on account of any loss, the petitioner will be liable for the Indian Oil Corporation. He further submits that two accused persons have faced the trial, however, the case of one of the accused Shyam Narayan Singh was split up and the other accused Amarjeet Singh has faced the trial, wherein he has been acquitted by judgment dated 31.01.2023, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. He further submits that since the other accused is not appearing before the learned court, as such, the case against him is still pending and in the judgment of acquittal of accused Amarjeet Singh, the learned court has held that the prosecution has failed to make out the case of conviction. He further submits that the cylinders in question are deteriorating day by way, as the same are lying in open since long. In that view of the matter, these cylinders may kindly be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court has rightly rejected the petition of the petitioner and in that view of the matter, this court may not interfere in the matter.

¶11

In view of the above facts and submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that the agreement is Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit, which suggests that the petitioner was the transporter of the Indian Oil Corporation. The

¶12

-3-

¶13

agreement also suggests that only the petitioner is liable for any loss, if the same has occurred to the Indian Oil Corporation and one of the accused Amarjeet Singh has already been acquitted and the learned trial court has held that the prosecution has failed to make out a case of conviction. The split up case of one of the accused is still pending and the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have not released the cylinders in question considering that cylinders are the material evidence.

¶14

.7. Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the court to pass appropriate order as it thinks fit for the purpose of custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the same can be disposed of. If the cylinders in question are lying in open space, it will be deteriorated, in this regard reference may be made to the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-17 and 18 thereof has held as follows:-

¶15

“17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

¶16

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”

¶17

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow to

¶18

remain the said cylinders in the open, no purpose will be served and the said cylinders are deteriorating day by day and further one of the accused has already been acquitted, the part of the order dated 28.01.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan, in Criminal

¶19

-4-

¶20

Revision No. 58 of 2014, by which he has been pleased to affirm the order dated 10.09.2014, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella, in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No. 20 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 660 of 2014, whereby the learned court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for release of 306 LPG cylinders of Indian Oil Corporation Limited in favour of the petitioner, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella, is hereby, quashed. For the purpose of material evidence, one of the cylinder shall not be released and remaining 305 cylinders shall be released in favour of the petitioner on the following terms and conditions:-

¶21

(i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the learned court.

¶22

(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of the LPG Gas Agency of the district Seraikella-Kharsawan.

¶23

(iii) He shall give an affidavit to the effect that he will not misuse the said cylinders in any manner.

¶24

The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions which the trial Court deems fit and proper.

¶25

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

Amitesh/-

Sanjay Kumar Jain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Jain 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

Biresh Chandra Dutta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nirbhay Kumar Shahbadi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ranjeet Mishra Alias Ranjeet Narayan Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahabir Prasad Jalan and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

S K Chatterjee Alias Soumen Chatterjee Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Gupteshwar Prasad Sinha and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.