Remanded

Md. Hazrat Ali v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jan 2014CR. MISC./1245/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal miscellaneous petitions sought quashing of a magistrate's order rejecting prayers for the release of seized fertilizers. The High Court directed the lower court to release the fertilizers within one week upon production of adequate security.

What did the court decide?

Directed the learned Magistrate to pass an order releasing the fertilizer to the petitioners within one week of production of the order copy upon taking adequate security.

Md. Hazrat Ali Vs The State Of Bihar — Patna HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.894 of 2014 (2) dt.10-01-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.894 of 2014
======================================================
Balram Prasad Sah
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.994 of 2014
======================================================
Roshan Kumar Gupta
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1245 of 2014
======================================================
Md. Hazrat Ali
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 10-01-2014 The aforementioned applications have been filed for
quashing of the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by learned JM, 1 st
Class, Araria in Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 153 of 2011 whereby
the petitioners’ application for release of the seized fertilizer has
been rejected.
The prosecution case is that the police conducted raid
at various places on 07.12.2011 on confidential information that
illegal business of fertilizer is being carried out, when from the
business premises of Balram Prasad Sah, 915 bags of different

¶3

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.894 of 2014 (2) dt.10-01-2014

¶4

brands of fertilizers were recovered, while from the premises of Roshan Kumar Gupta, 404 bags of fertilizer and from the petitioner Md. Hazrat Ali, 50 bags of fertilizer were recovered.

¶5

This is not in dispute that the raid was conducted and fertilizers were seized by the Police Inspector, consequently leading to the registration of Kursakanta P.S. Case no. 153 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 414 and 420/34 of the IPC.

¶6

Subsequently, confiscation proceeding was initiated vide Confiscation Case No. 12 of 2011-12 under Section 6A of the E.C. Act for violation of Fertilizer Control Order. The initiation of the said proceeding and the notices issued thereunder were quashed by two different Bench of this Court vide Cr. W.J.C. Nos. 250 of 2012, 251 of 2012, 252 of 2012 and 253 of 2012 on 14.05.2012 and 16.12.2012 on the ground that the very seizure was contrary to the provisions under Section 27 and 28 of the Fertilizer Control Order and since the case was instituted under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, hence it cannot be said that any Control Order has been violated. Both the orders of this Court have been brought on record as Annexure-5 (series). Consequently, the Collector, Araria dropped confiscation proceeding on 01.11.2012, the same has been brought on record as

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.894 of 2014 (2) dt.10-01-2014

¶8

Annexure-6.

¶9

Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for release of the fertilizer before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for release of the fertilizer on 03.12.2013.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the fertilizer is lying in the open space and from the order of the learned Magistrate, it appears that the matter is pending for supply of the police papers, hence there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near future.

¶11

This is not in dispute that the fertilizers belong to these petitioners and the son of petitioner Balram Prasad Sah and petitioner Roshan Kumar Gupta claim themselves to be licensee and petitioner Md. Hazrat Ali is a farmer.

¶12

Considering the fact that confiscation proceeding has already been dropped and it is not in dispute that fertilizers were seized from premises of the petitioners. Moreover impugned order reflects that there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the fertilizer in such an unsafe condition. Hence the learned court below is directed to pass appropriate order for release of the fertilizer within a period of one week of the production of the copy of this order on

¶13

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.894 of 2014 (2) dt.10-01-2014

¶14

taking adequate security from the petitioners.
Accordingly, the application is disposed off.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
Amrendra/-

Md. Hazrat Ali v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Hazrat Ali v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Balmiki Prasad @ Biresh Kumar and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Chandan @ Chandan Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sachchidanand Tiwari @ Sachidanand Tiwari Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Amar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Balram Prasad Sah Vs The State Of Bihar