Naheed Ara Moonis, J. - (1.) STATE of U.P. and the Power Corporation of India have filed two separate revisions challenging the order dated 25.10.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge -II Kaushambi whereby the release application no. 33 of 2011 (Dilip Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others) vide Case Crime No. 547 of 2009 under section 406/411 IPC read with section 136 Electricity Act Police Station Kokhraj Kaushambi was allowed. Since both the revisions have been filed challenging the same order therefore, both the revisions are being heard and decided by a common order. Heard Sri A.K.Sand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the Electricity Corporation, Sri Moeez Uddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party and have been taken through the record.
(2.) THE prosecution case in a nutshell is that a first information report was lodged against Ramji Verma by Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Junior Engineer, Power Corporation of India vide Case Crime No. 547 of 2009 under section 406/411 IPC read with section 136 Electricity Act at Police Station Kokhraj District Kaushambi. During the course of raid, huge quantity of goods were recovered from the house of Ramji Verma ( the opposite party no. 2). The investigating officer proceeded with the investigation of the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons after collecting clinching and credible evidence. In the meantime a release application was moved on 16.12.2009 by Dilip Kumar Verma who is the son of Ramji Verma stating therein that he is holding a registered dealership of M/s Raj Electric Works Naya Bazar Bharwari, Kaushambi and is doing the business of seized articles. In proof of his claim, he filed a number of receipts. Initially the court below rejected the release application. Thereafter Dilip Kumar Verma, the son of Ramji Verma (accused) filed a revision No. 1021 of 2010 before this Court and the another Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.2.2011 directed to decide the release application of the revisionist afresh after considering the receipts filed by the revisionist in support of his claim that the seized property was purchased by him and after satisfying himself that the revisionist is the owner of the seized property. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the Dilip Kumar Verma had filed Criminal Revision No. 1021 of 2010 (Dilip Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.) before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order dated 15.2.2010 directing the Additional Sessions Judge Kaushambi to decide the release application of the revisionist afresh after considering the receipts filed by him. The court below has passed the order dated 25.10.2011 allowing the release application with the condition that the opposite party no. 4 Dilip Kumar shall furnish security to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lacs and will submit an undertaking that he will produce the seized articles before the court concern as and when required. Against the aforesaid order dated 25.10.2011, both revisions have been preferred. The moot submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the documents on the basis of which seized property was released are not genuine and authentic papers. The court below has committed grave error by releasing the seized property without considering the enquiry report with regard to authenticity and genuineness of the receipts. The report was submitted by the investigating officer with regard to the genuineness of the receipts. It is clear from the report that the said receipts were got prepared for the purpose of creating defence and releasing the seized goods. The detailed enquiry report is enclosed as Annexure -11 which was not considered by the court below while releasing the goods in favour of claimant hence the order passed by the court below is not tenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. The seized property belongs to the power corporation and the court below has wrongly released in favour of opposite parties. It was further argued that the report given by Junior Engineer Sanjeev Kumar Misra who was already suspended prior to the property being seized by the police has no relevance. He had no authority to submit any report in favour of the opposite parties thus the order passed by the court below relying upon such report being per se erroneous does not deserve to sustain and may be quashed. Having considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the complicity of the matter, it appears that the seized articles were belonging to the power corporation. The order passed by the court below dated 25.10.2011 is hereby set aside. Both the revisions are allowed. The matter is remitted back to the court below to pass fresh orders within one month from the date of submission of certified copy of this order in accordance with law after giving full opportunities to the parties.;