RAM KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition against the order dated 19/06/2012 passed in Criminal Revision No. 51/11 whereby the application preferred for custody of the goods seized i.e. silver bars was rejected by the court of Judicial Magistrate which was affirmed by court of A.S.J. in revision. The said order of revision is under challenge. Facts which are necessary to adjudicate the issue are that on 14/10/2010 while vehicles were being checked, the petitioner who was coming on motorcycle his motorcycle was intercepted. Further on search from the dickey of motorcycle six pieces of silver rods were recovered. On being asked the valid documents in respect of such silver bars, the inability was shown by the applicant. Therefore, the, motorcycle and the silver bars were seized on suspicion. Subsequently, an application was filed by applicant under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. and it was stated that the applicant had obtained the said silver bars from a jeweler on credit in order to fulfill his wish to prepare a statue of goddess. Initially an application for custody of such silver and the motorcycle moved on 19/10/2010, the same was rejected on, 16/12/2010. Thereafter, a Cr.M.P. No. 104/2011 was filed before the High Court wherein by an order dated 11/07/2011 it was directed that in case, no offence is registered against the petitioner for commission of any offence under the provisions of the I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive his application for grant of interim custody of the property seized and the same shall be considered by the court below.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in view of that a petition was filed before the C.J.M. as no offence was registered within one month from passing of such order. He would submit that said order dated 11/07/2011 was a bi-parte order and State was represented in such petition. Therefore, it was within the knowledge of the State about such order.

(3.) Learned counsel further submits that after passing of such order when within one month thereafter no offence was registered, an application for interim custody of the silver was filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. which was decided on 24/09/2011. Learned court below of C.J.M., Korba came to a finding that though prima facie the silver seized appeared to be that of applicant but it was rejected on the ground that the silver which was of the value of Rs. 96,000/- could not have been given on credit by the Kanhaiya Jewelers to the applicant as the applicant was only serving as a store keeper in a hospital. The said order was further assailed in criminal revision before Sessions Judge, Korba in Criminal Revision No. 51/11. The said revision was decided on 19/06/2012 wherein learned court of Sessions Judge also dismissed the petition on the ground that order dated 11/07/2011 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 104/2011 appeared to be not attached in the case diary and the Sessions Judge believed in the police statement and rejected the revision, therefore this instant Cr.M.P.