ANIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th July, 2013, passed by Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in Petarbar P.S. Case No. 94 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 932 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of iron scraps seized in this case, has been rejected by the learned Court below.

(2.) It appears from the impugned order that the iron scraps were seized from a truck and the driver and khalasi had informed that the seized materials were loaded at the instance of the petitioner, who is owner of M/s. Maha Laxmi Steels. It appears that there were some iron angles and some other minor parts also alongwith the iron scraps, but there seems to be no mention about these items in the documents produced by the petitioner before the Police. The Investigating Officer reported to the Court below that it appeared that in the garb of the business of the iron scraps, petitioner was dealing with the business of angles also. The impugned order also shows that the Investigating Officer had also reported that some photocopies of the registers were produced but the same were not attested by any competent authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, there is no theft report with respect to the seized materials. It is submitted that the petitioner produced the documents with respect to the seized articles, in which the iron angles were also mentioned in the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a fit case, in which the seized materials ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner, and has, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.