SANTANU KUMAR BARIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.6.2004 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar in 2(a) CC No. 144 of 2004 wherein he rejected the petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner to release the seized truck bearing No. OR-09B-0944 in his favour.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision succinctly stated is that on 26.5.2004 at about 2.00 P.M. while the S.I. of Excise Sadar, Keonjhar along with his staff, A.P.R. force and Executive Magistrate was returning to Headquarters, after excise raid in different places, he saw the aforesaid vehicle moving from Keonjhar side towards Champua on N.H. 215. On suspicion he intercepted the vehicle at Bankamaruni and on search found 51 sacks of mahua flower loaded in it. On demand the driver of the truck who was alone inside could not show any authority in respect of transporting the said intoxicant. So the S.I. of Excise seized the intoxicant along with the vehicle in presence of the witnesses, prepared seizure list in respect thereof, arrested the driver, Mursid Alam for the offence under Section 47(a) Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') gave the seized mahua flower in zima of one Shyam Ataranjan Prasad of village Amaranga, on execution of zimanama took the vehicle to his office and forwarded the accused along with the seizure list and zimanama to Court. During investigation owner of the vehicle was found to be an abettor and was made an accused in the said case. P.R. was submitted under Section 47(a) Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 read with Section 55 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and Orissa Amendment Act of 1998 and Section 9 of I.P.C.

(3.) While the case was pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar the petitioner filed a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for interim release of the vehicle in his favour. Relying on a Division Bench decision in Ugam Nath v. State of Orissa; 2004 (1) O.L.R. 188 of this Court the learned S.D.J.M. rejected the petition holding that the petitioner was implicated in the commission of the offence. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner has preferred this revision as mentioned earlier.