Prasant Kumar Harichandan Vs State of Odisha

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 2^nd December, 2022 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with CMC No.193 of 2021 by the learned J.M.F.C.(O), Bhubaneswar followed by a direction to the concerned PS to recover the seizure machine and release the same in his favour as an interim measure pending disposal of G.R. Case No.698 of 2016 on the grounds stated.

¶17

Mr. Rajgurumohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned court below seeking interim custody of the seizure machine but it was followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 with a conclusion that the same has not been seized in connection with the case. It is claimed that the machine was seized by the local PS as revealed from the chargesheet, a copy of which, is at Annexure-3, hence,

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

therefore, it was not right for the learned court below to deny such interim release and custody of the same in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State referring to the enquiry report dated 27^th November, 2022 held pursuant to the Court’s order in CRLREV No.124 of 2022 as at Annexure-6 submits that such enquiry revealed that the seizure of the machine was mistakenly reflected in the chargesheet.

¶21

It is claimed that the machine belongs to the petitioner and it was in the custody of the accused on the basis of an agreement. A copy of the agreement is at Annexure-4. Apart from such an agreement, a copy of the invoice at Annexure-4 series is referred to. The claim is that the petitioner being the owner in respect of the alleged machine, the learned court below should have allowed custody of the same with the appropriate directions issued in view of the chargesheet at Annexure-3 and the report of the ACP i.e. Annexure-6.

¶22

Admittedly, the seizure of the machine in question is shown in the chargesheet at Annexure-3. But in view of the enquiry held and report received from the concerned ACP at Annexure-6, the Court finds that the seizure of the machine was wrongly reflected in Annexure-3. Thus, it is made to understand that the machine claimed to have been seized is in the custody of the accused. In view of the above, the further submission is that a direction may perhaps be issued the I.O. concerned to recover the machine in order to facilitate interim

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

custody of the same in favour of the petitioner. Having regard to the above facts and submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties and since, enquiry has been held pursuant to the Court’s order in CRLREV No.124 of 2022 and a report is furnished by the ACP concerned, the Court is of the view that a direction is required for the I.O to recover the alleged machine from the accused so as to enable the learned court below to pass appropriate orders vis-à-vis interim custody thereof on the application of the petitioner moved in terms of Section 457 Cr.P.C. as such a course of action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

¶25

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with. It is directed the I.O. concerned shall recover the alleged machine from the accused, namely, Rajesh Kumar Das and thereafter, to submit it to the custody of the learned court below, which shall upon receiving intimation about such recovery and seizure in connection with G.R. Case No.698 of 2016 shall consider the claim of the petitioner disposing of the application filed by him under Section 457 Cr.P.C. followed by an order at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the entire exercise shall be completed within the above stipulated period in order to ensure proper custody of the alleged machine. Consequently, the proceeding in CMC No.193 of

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

Rojina

¶29

2021 is restored to file for compliance of the direction as aforesaid.

¶30