LAWS(PAT)-2015-6-71

NAKUL DEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On June 25, 2015
NAKUL DEO SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - By an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short "the Code"), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.4.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr. Revision No.49 of 2015. The criminal revision was filed against the order dated 25.3.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Sadar P.S. Case No.492 of 2014 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under sections 451 and 457 of the Code. The application was filed for release of the lorry bearing Registration No.JH-04E-1605 having Engine No. B591803111A62981208, Chasis No. MAT466383B2A01540 which was seized in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.492 of 2014 instituted on a written complaint made by one Bajranglal Ladha alleging, inter alia, that being an authorised representative of M/S Abha Agro Exports Pvt. Ltd., he had hired the lorry in question from its owners Aditya Bhagat and Bharat Bhagat through lorry supplier Sanjay Sharma and loaded 553 bags containing 34.9 metric ton maize from Kali-warehouse, Harda Road, Gulabbagh to be delivered at Mehedipur (Malda). The lorry driver Md. Ansar started with lorry and goods for Mehedipur but the lorry did not reach the destination and when efforts were made to contact the driver his cell phone was found switched off. Thereafter, the lorry owner Aditya Bhagat was contacted but he did not make any positive response. Subsequently, the lorry was located in Purnea in a workshop. The informant has alleged that the lorry owner and the driver have stolen the goods.

(2.) On the basis of the aforesaid written report Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No.492 of 2014 was registered under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against Aditya Bhagat, Bharat Bhagat and Md. Ansar on 1.10.2014 and investigation was taken up.

(3.) It has been contended that during investigation the vehicle was seized. The matter is still under investigation and the petitioner has not been made accused in the case. As a matter of fact, he is the registered owner of the lorry in question. The certificate of registration, certificate of fitness and the certificate of insurance would make it evident that undisputedly the petitioner is a bona fide owner of the seized lorry. On the strength of the aforesaid certificates, he made an application under sections 451 and 457 of the Code before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea for release of the vehicle, who called for a report from the Investigating Officer of the case. The Investigating Officer has submitted his report in which he has raised no objection to the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in his favour. Despite there being no rival claimant and there being no objection to the prayer for release by the investigating agency, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 25.3.2015 on the ground that the Power of Attorney holder Aditya Bhagat, who was authorised to ply the vehicle on hire basis is still absconding in the case.