Ashish Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.774 of 2023

------

Ashish Kumar Agrawal, aged about 34 years, son of Yamuna Prasad Agrawal, resident of village Siho, P.O. Okhargada, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The District/Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. and District Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Officer-In-Charge, Ranka Police Station, P.O. & P.S. Ranka, District Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶9

… Opposite Parties

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P.

¶11

------

¶12

P R E S E N T

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶15

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 11.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.71 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa has dismissed the Criminal Revision No.71 of 2022 which was filed challenging the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Garhwa in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.83 of 2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Garhwa has rejected the prayer for release of 3.5 lakhs roasted bricks and chimney which were seized in connection with the said Ranka P.S. Case No.83 of 2022.

¶16

1 Cr. M.P. No.774 of 2023

¶17

The brief fact of the case is that the said Ranka P.S. Case No.83 of 2022 was instituted; consequent upon the written report submitted by the District Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa with the Officer-In-Charge of the Ranka Police Station. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed theft and dishonestly receiving the stolen property of 3,50,000 pieces of roasted bricks and he installed a chimney without any permission and ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the concerned authority upon the land which does not belong to him, but in respect of which he has entered into an unregistered agreement with the land owner. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Garhwa, considering the facts and the objection of the Investigating Officer of the case that the bricks be not released in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner is not the owner of the same, rejected the same.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs.14,00,000/- in respect of bricks and Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of chimney with the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa which will be subject to final outcome of the case. It is next submitted that bricks are subject to decay and as the bricks have been kept under open sky for over two years and though the charge-sheet has been submitted but cognizance has not yet been taken, there is every likelihood of the bricks being wasted. It is next submitted that there is no one except the petitioner to claim the bricks though for more than two years have elapsed; since their seizure. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶19

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

¶20

¶21

Cr. M.P. No.774 of 2023

¶22

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is needless to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that articles seized in connection with criminal case should not unnecessarily be kept under open sky subjecting it to decay and diminish its value. The undisputed fact remains that though the bricks and the chimney have been seized by the police for over two years but no one except the petitioner has come forward to claim ownership of the same. The undisputed fact is that the bricks and chimney were seized from the possession of the petitioner and as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though charge-sheet has been submitted in this case but cognizance has not yet been taken, though more than two years have elapsed from the date of institution of this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the royalty amount of Rs.1,22,050/- with the District Mining Office, Garhwa which is evident from Annexure-3 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

¶23

Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that both the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Garhwa and the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa have committed a grave illegality by not considering that allowing the bricks to be left uncared, under open sky will likely to diminish its value and as investigation of this case has already been over, so, there is no purpose of keeping the bricks in the premises of the police station. Under such circumstances, the order dated 11.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.71 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa as well as the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Garhwa in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.83 of 2022, be quashed and set aside.

¶24

¶25

Cr. M.P. No.774 of 2023

¶26

Accordingly, the order dated 11.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.71 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa as well as the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Garhwa in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.83 of 2022, is quashed and set aside.

¶27

The learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Garhwa is directed to release the seized bricks and chimney to the petitioner, upon the petitioner showing the proof of deposit of Rs.16,00,000/- with the Deputy Commissioner and such deposit of Rs.16,00,000/- will be subject to final outcome of the proceeding in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.83 of 2022 and on furnishing undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not use the chimney unless and until he obtains the necessary permission and ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the competent authority.

¶28

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶30

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 03^rd of December, 2024 AFR/ Saroj

¶31

¶32

Cr. M.P. No.774 of 2023

Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Saluja Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kishore Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rameshwar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Wahab Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narayan Kapri Vs Saligram Yadav

Noorjahan Bibi and Anr. Vs Sanaullah Ansari and Ors.