SHRABAN KUMAR AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner challenges correctness of the order dated 20.3.2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2001 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak.

(3.) The case involves certain peculiar as well as interesting features. According to the petitioner, his Bajaj Priya scooter bearing Registration No. OR-II-0602 was stolen from his garage on 24.9.1998 at Betanati. So, on his report Betanati P.S. Case No. 96 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 959 of 1998 of the Court of S.D.J.M. Baripada was registered for the offence under Section 379, I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that because of no trace of the scooter and absence of clue to accuse any person as the offender, final report was submitted in that case and as against that learned S.D.J.M., Baripada intimated the petitioner to file protest petition, if any. At that stage petitioner received an information regarding recovery and seizure of his stolen scooter by the police officers working under Basudevpur Police-Station, the factum of seizure being reported to the J.M.F.C., Basudevpur in accordance with the provision of law in sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. Highlighting the aforesaid facts and circumstances petitioner filed an application under Section 452 Cr.P.C., which, according to the petitioner, was not accepted and returned to the petitioner by the J.M.F.C., Basudevpur with an endorsement to present it before appropriate forum. No judicial order was passed in that respect. Petitioner thus approached learned Addl. Sessions judge, Bhadrak by filing the aforesaid application which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2001. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge after exhaustively examining the facts and circumstances rejected the prayer of the petitioner supporting the action of the learned J.M.F.C., inter alia, on the ground that an application under Section 452, Cr.P.C. was not maintainable in the Court of J.M.F.C., Basudevpur as the criminal proceeding in which the seizure was made was not disposed of and even if that application shall be treated as one under Section 457 Cr.P.C., then also such application is not maintainable because the seizure was not reported to the J.M.F.C., Basudevpur on the basis of the information of the petitioner. Thus, petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for appropriate remedy.