Pankaj Kumar Mehta vs State of Jharkhand

H.C. Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2012 passed in Tatijharia P.S. Case No. 9 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 671 of 2012 by Sri Sanjay Singh Yadav, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag, whereby the application for release of the liquor seized in connection with the case, was rejected by the Court below.

The FIR of Tatijharia P.S. Case No. 9 of 2012 shows that the vehicle loaded with foreign liquor was apprehended during transportation, but the driver of the vehicle could not produce the documents for the same. However, he informed the police that the liquor belonged to one Shravan Kumar, who had got the consignment loaded for transportation. The petitioner subsequently filed application for release of the liquor in question claiming himself to be the owner of the seized liquor, as the same were purchased from one M/s. Chandra Shekhar Jha, Hazaribag, on 4.3.2012. The petitioner also claimed to be the license holder and accordingly, he filed application for release of the liquor seized in connection with this case.

The Court below has found that ownership of the property was doubtful, inasmuch as, the petitioner claimed to be the owner of the liquor, whereas at the time of lodging of FIR, the police was informed that the same belonged to one Shravan Kumar. The Court below also found that the petitioner was not made accused in this case and accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner for release of the liquor in question was rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the petitioner had produced the documents with respect of liquor purchased by him and also produced the license for the same, which were found to be genuine. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case, in which the liquor should have been released in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.

It appears from the impugned order that the Court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of doubt in ownership of the liquor, which could not be prima facie established in this case. In the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below refusing to release the liquor in question in view of the genuine doubt about the ownership of the liquor.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he shall file a joint application along with said Shravan Kumar in the Court below with the statement that the seized property did not belong to Shravan Kumar, rather, it belonged to the petitioner. If the petitioner files any such application in the Court below, the Court below shall dispose of the same in accordance with law without being prejudiced by its earlier order. This criminal revision is, accordingly, disposed of, with the observation as above.