MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the number of the truck at Page 11 of this application.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that on a wrong assumption that a confiscation proceeding is going on in respect of the truck in question the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order. Elaborating this part of the argument he submits that his truck has been hired by the State Food Corporation which is also supported by the report submitted by the Department i. e. Assistant Manager but if the driver had carried any unauthorised diesal the truck in question for that cannot be seized. He, therefore, submits that in fact the confiscation proceeding is going on in respect of the diesal which have been seized from the truck in drums and, as such, the learned Judge should not have detained his vehicle in respect of which there is no proceeding and also submits that the petitioner undertakes to produce his truck if and when called upon to do so.