SATYANARAYAN AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2013, whereby the revision filed against the order dated 28.09.2013, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikalla, in G.R. No. 871 of 2013, rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicles in question. has been dismissed by the Revisional Court below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below, rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicles only on the ground that confiscation proceeding had been initiated with respect to them, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is pointed out that the prosecution in the present case has been instituted under the M.M.D.R. Act and in a similar matter where also the prosecution was instituted under the M.M.D.R. Act and the confiscation proceeding with respect to the vehicles in question had been initiated, this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 3095 of 2013 (Biva Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand), disposed of on 19.12.2013, has held taking note of Section 24(4 -A) of the M.M.D.R. Act, that there is no provision which prevents the Court from making the order for release of the vehicle seized in a case for contravention of the M.M.D.R. Act, only on the ground that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated, and accordingly, it was not proper on the part of the Court to refuse the prayer for release on the said ground. Learned counsel placing reliance on the said decision has submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.