LENGA MANJHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been tiled against the order dated 15-12-03 whereby learned Court below rejected the prayer of 1 he petitioners to release the cash amounting to Rs. 5,15,750/- and also two fixed deposits seized by the police, bearing No. S. D. A/68-734772 and S. D. A/72- 443861 in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P. S. Case No. 233 of 2003 which was registered against the Lodha Manjhi for offence under Section 25 (1-B), A, 26, 35 Arms Act.

(2.) From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that the seized money and fixed deposit certificates are not perishable items and then was no justification for the petitioner to keep such a huge amount in his house and thereby the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for release of the aforesaid cash amount as well as the fixed certificates,

(3.) Learned counsel tor the State who was directed to seek instruction and file counter affidavit, if any. Pursuant thereto a counter affidavit has been filed duly sworn in by the officer-in-charge, Kuju Police Station. The State has tried to support the impugned order stating that no valid paper was shown by the petitioner regarding the ownership of the seized articles nor the petitioner claimed to be the owner thereof in course of investigation. Apparently the said stand taken by the State appears to be absolutely wrong. The petitioner is very much claiming the cash amount as well as the fixed deposit certificates on the ground that he is the owner of the same and it should be released in his favour. From Annexure-5 to the revision application which is the report of the Investigating Officer submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, it appears that the Investigating Officer has held that though the ownership of the cash amount as well as of the fixed deposits appears to be in favour of the petitioner but there is no justification for the petitioner to keep such a huge amount in his house. From the report of the Investigating Officer also it appears that the ownership of the petitioners regarding the cash amount and fixed deposit certificates was not disputed by the Investigating Officer.