DALIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order dated 25.4.96 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Appeal No. 3/96 whereby the order dated 15th Sept., 1995 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur in Cr. Misc. Case No. 318/94 under section 102 Code Criminal Procedure was affirmed whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after holding an inquiry under section 457 Code Criminal Procedure ordered to forfeit a sum of Rs. 1,55,000.00 seized from the petitioner under section 102 Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition may be stated briefly that the petitioner was travelling in a truck HMQ 8867 on 1.9.94 from Udaipur to Bhilwara. The truck was stopped by constables Satya Narain and Kishan Lal of Police Station, Karoi on wireless message. Shri Devi Singh son of Ganesh Singh Rajput resident of Seti, District Chittorgarh was driving the truck and Manohar Lal Sharma was the khalasi of this truck. One Mohd. Salim was also sitting alongwith the petitioner in the truck. The truck was checked by the head constable of Police Station, Karoi and a sum of Rs. 1,55,000.00 was seized from the possession of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was going to Bhilwara to purchase English wine from Sohan Lal and Co. for taking that English wine to Ahmedabad for sale. Since the said amount was kept by the petitioner for doing illegal trade in wine it was seized under section 102 Code Criminal Procedure After investigation a report was submitted under section 102(3) Code Criminal Procedure to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur.

(3.) The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a proclamation under sub-section (2) of Sec. 457 Code Criminal Procedure Upon it the petitioner approached this Court through S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 799/94 wherein it was ordered on 1.8.95 that the enquiry should be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of the order. Consequently, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concluded the enquiry as directed by this Court and recorded the order dated 15th Sept., 1995 to forfeit the amount in favour of the State and the application of the petitioner to refund the amount was rejected. As already stated above, the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara.