MD. JAMAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of challenge in Criminal Revision No. 413/2001 is the order dated 10.8.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Criminal Revision Case No. 2(3)/2001 and 3(3)/2001 with regard to the interim prayer for custody of Barks of Leham Trees, whereby the Respondent No. 6 was allowed Zimma of 420 bags of seized Laham Barks and the petitioner was allowed to take Zimma of the remaining bags seized in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 1307 2001. This Court by order dated 16.8.2001 while issuing notice of motion stayed the operation of the order dated 10.8.2001 allowing Zimma of 420 bags of Laham Barks in favour of the Respondent No. 6.

(2.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 476/2001 has been filed against the order dated 21.8.2001 passed by the learned lower revisional court declining to issue a direction to take back the Zimma of the Laham Barks which in the meantime had been granted in favour of the Respondent No. 6. By the said order the learned court below also stayed further proceedings of the revision petition pending before it. This court while issuing notice of motion by order dated 6.9.2001 directed maintenance of status quo of the seized articles.

(3.) ASSAILING the said order, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned lower revisional court totally left out of consideration the documents and records in support of his ownership of the seized Laham Barks and on an erroneous appreciation of the materials on record granted custody of 420 bags of the seized Barks in favour of the Respondent No. 6. It appears from the revision petition filed in Criminal Revision No. 476/2001 that a civil suit has also been filed in the court of the Additional District Magistrate -cum -Civil Judge, Tura claiming ownership over the seized Laham Barks. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that the suit is still pending. It has been further contended that in spite of the fact that this court by order dated 16.8.2001 had stayed the order granting custody of the Laham Barks in favour of the Respondent No. 6, the learned revisional court did not pass any order directing the police to withdraw the same from the possession of the Respondent No. 6 and instead not only stayed further proceedings in the revision petition before it, but also the handing over of all the remaining Laham Barks in favour of the petitioner as ordered earlier.