- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State. It is the case of the prosecution that a truck bearing registration No. BR 20 D 8607, when was intercepted by the police, the police did find that six tonnes of iron scrap was being carried over it. On being quizzed, the driver of the truck disclosed that the iron scrap belongs to this petitioner but he did not produce any document showing ownership over the iron scrap of this petitioner. Therefore, the iron scrap was taken to be stolen property and a case was registered as Jaridih P.S. Case No. 60/2012 under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of the seized iron scrap. That application was rejected by the Court below. That order was even affirmed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 13/09/2012, passed in Cr. Revision No. 100/2012 after holding that the petitioner did fail to produce the documents showing his ownership over the iron scrap and that the matter is still under investigation. The orders, passed by the Court below and also by the Revisional Court, have been challenged. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Proprietor of a Firm known as M/s Mahalaxmi Steels, dealing in business of iron scrap. He had sold the iron scrap to Purulia Metal Casting (P) Ltd., and while the same was being transported to the place of business of Purulia Metal Casting (P) Limited, it was seized on the way by taking it to be a stolen property but there had been no reason on the part of the informant to take the property as stolen as it is the case of the prosecution that the driver had disclosed to the informant that the said iron scrap belongs to this petitioner, which facts gets substantiated from the documents produced before the Court below and in such situation, the Court should have released the seized articles in favour of the petitioner but the Court below without considering the case in the right perspective rejected the prayer for release by holding that the petitioner had failed to produce the documents at the time of seizure of iron scrap, and that the investigation is under progress, but the fact is that it had been disclosed by the driver at the time of seizure that the seized articles belong to this petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the records, it does appear that when the iron scrap was being transported on a truck, it was intercepted and on being quizzed, the driver disclosed that the iron scrap belongs to this petitioner and the petitioner, as per the report of the Investigating Officer, has been dealing with the sale and purchase of iron scrap and, therefore, the Court, under the circumstances, should have released the iron scrap in favour of the petitioner but by not doing so, both the Courts below seems to have committed illegality. Accordingly, the order under which the prayer for release has been rejected and also the order of the Revisional Court, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the iron scrap weighing 6 tonnes /6100 M.T., seized in connection with Jaridih P.S. Case No. 60/2012, be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing bond of Rs. 1,10,000/ (one lakh ten thousand) with one surety and on giving undertaking that during pendency of the case, he will not dispose of the seized materials in any manner and will produce it whenever the same would be required by the Court.
(3.) THUS , this application stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.;