I T C LTD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioner has assailed the legality and propriety of the order 10-11-2004 passed by the J.M.F.C., Khallikote in Misc. Case No. 83 of 2004 arising out of 2(C) CC case No. 7/2004 wherein he rejected the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner-Company through its Executive, Finance, Mr. Ritobrata Chakravorty filed the petition under Section 451, Cr.P.C. before the Court below with a prayer to release 400 cartoons of cigarette to the Company or in the alternative release the entire consignment in favour of the transporter M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited. As per the case of the petitioner it is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata inter alia engaged in the business of production of cigarette. One of the units of the petitioner-Company situates at Munger in the State of Bihar. On 4-9-2005 the petitioner-Company entrusted 400 cartoons of cigarette to M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation Limited one of its authorized transporters to be transported from Munger to Tirupati. While the said goods were being carried in truck bearing No. WB-11 -7775 on the way it was alleged that the vehicle dashed against the railway gate at Rambha. So the truck along with the 400 cartoons of cigarette was seized and a case under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 was registered against the driver of the vehicle on the complaint made by the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Railway Protection Force. As per the petition the truck along with the 400 cartons of cigarette has been kept in the police station. If the cigarettes are allowed to be kept there any further then the flavor of the cigarette would be reduced and the same would be decayed.

(3.) No objection was filed on behalf of the State. Learned J.M.F.C. Khallikote after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner rejected the petition holding mainly that there is no sufficient material to hold that Mr. Chakravorty is entitled to the possession of the seized cigarette. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.