FIROJ ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner had filed the application for release of his vehicle, which has been seized in connection with a criminal case, in which the trial is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, in S.T. No. 146 of 2012.

(2.) It appears that when the vehicle was seized, the petitioner was not the registered owner of the vehicle, though he had claimed to have purchased the vehicle from the registered owner. The petitioner filed his application for release of the vehicle, which was earlier rejected by order dated 5.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, as the documents filed by the petitioner showed that the registered owner of the vehicle was one Swami Charan Ram, and not the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in Cr. Revision No 683 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 17.1.2013, observing that the petitioner claimed to have purchased the vehicle from the owner Swami Charan Ram, but in view of the fact that there was nothing on the record to show that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner, no illegality was found in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, in refusing to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. However, it was observed that if the petitioner possessed any document regarding the transfer of the vehicle in question, the petitioner may file a fresh application before the Court below and the Court below was directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner, if any, in accordance with law.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner thereafter again filed his application for release of the vehicle in question and the report was called for from the D.T.O., Dhanbad regarding the ownership of the said vehicle. However, there appears to be no finding whether the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the petitioner or not but, the order dated 20.2.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih, shows that he directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, to pass the order on the point of release of the vehicle of the petitioner. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in turn, by order dated 14.3.2013 held that he had no power to pass any order in view of the fact that the case was already committed to the Court of Session. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, again passed the order on 19.3.2013 stating that the Court was competent to ask the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the matter under Section 452(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to take decision in this matter.