UMESHPRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's case is that in a mid-night of 13.9.93 respondent No. 2, Sri R. B. Rajak, the then Officer-in-Charge, Athmalgola Police Station, Subdivision Barh, District Patna came to his residence and forcibly seized the petitioner's auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. BHU 7754 without any authority of law. When the petitioner wanted to know the reason for seizure of his auto-rickshaw, respondent No. 2 abused him and took the auto-rickshaw to the police station which was situated at a distance of 10 kms. from the petitioner's residence. Petitioner's further case is that he approached respondent No. 2 for the release of his auto-rickshaw but respondent No. 2 did not release the auto rickshaw and on the contrary respondent No. 2 changed the registration number of the auto- rickshaw from BHU 7754 to BPZ 8355 on its body and also attempted to change the engine number by obliterating the same. Due to illegal seizure and detention of the auto-rickshaw for a long time without any authority of law, petitioner has been deprived of the earning of means of livelihood and deprivation of the earning the means of livelihood coupled to the damages caused to the auto-rickshaw, petitioner has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 not having appeared in spite of service notice of the petition, this Court was constrained to issue a non-bailable warrant of his arrest and production before this Court. Respondent No. 2 thereafter appeared on 22.9.94 and filed affidavit-in-opposition contending inter alia that he did not receive the notice of the High Court and for which he could not appear on the date fixed earlier. In the affidavit-in-opposition Respondent No. 2 also denied the allegations made in the petition that he forcibly took the auto-rickshaw from the residence of the petitioner. In para 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition, respondent No. 2 contended as follows: That it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that on 8.10.93 at about 6.00 P.M. the Chaukidar who were deputed for maintaining law and order situation in the evening, came to the P.S. Athamalgola and informed the respondent No. 2 about an occurrence which was going on at a wine shop which is situated just 200 yards east to the police station, Athamalgola and according to the information given by these Chaukidars a Sanaha entry hearing Sanaha No. 136 dated 8.10.93 was entered and the statement of those Chaukidars were recorded in short and accordingly after recording the version of the Chaukidars the respondent No. 2. proceeded towards the paid wine shop and as soon as the respondent No. 2 reached at the place of occurrence the said wine shop, the person who was making annoyance or disturbing public peace after drinking had already fled away, but it was informed by the Chaukidar that person was driving the auto-rickshaw, which was standing by the side of wine shop and order informed the deponent about an occurrence and accordingly after entering the statement of the Chaukidars the opposite party No. 2 proceeded towards the wine shop and the auto-rickshaw bearing BPZ 8755 was seized at the wine shop which is situated by 200 yard from the Athamalgola P.S. and the seized auto-rickshaw bearing No. BPZ-8755 was brought to the police station in safe custody and after reaching the P.S. the respondent No. 2 entered Sanaha entry No. 137 dated 8.10.93 at 6.30 P.M. stating therein that the driver of the said auto-rickshaw fled away having seen the police and no identification or address was available about the said driver and it has also been stated in the Sainha entry that after verification of the document regarding the auto-rickshaw further action will be taken.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 further contended that upto 5.6.94 when he had been the officer-in-charge of Athamalgola police station, but no person approached the police station claiming ownership of the auto-rickshaw nor aid any person produce any document before him regarding the seized auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. BPZ 8755. Respondent No. 2 also denied the allegation that he seized auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. BHU 7754 from the residence of the petitioner and changed the registration number thereof and also obliterated the engine number. Respondent No. 2 spacifically denied the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner approached him for release of the auto-rickshaw.