B.B.MANGALMURTI,J. - (1.) Instant application has been filed challenging the order of the court of Sri Vishal Srivastava, the then J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 2028/2001 as well as the order of the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh dated 15.01.2010 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 229/2009 by which both the courts have dismissed the prayer of petitioner for release of iron scrap in his favour.
(2.) The fact of the case is that the F.I.R. being Hazaribagh, Barkatha P.S. case no. 66/2001 dated 29.08.2001 was filed against the accused persons including this petitioner by which truck loaded with iron scrap were seized. After investigation charge sheet was submitted in this case. The further case is that this petitioner prayed for release of this iron scrap in his favour but the Court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh passed order dated 23.05.2003 rejecting his prayer thereafter he approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in revision but the same was also dismissed. The petitioner approached this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 997/2003 claiming himself the owner of the seized iron scrap, which was purchased from Calcutta on payment of tax but the High Court after considering the matter dismissed the same vide order dated 12.08.2004.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier prayer for release of iron scrap was preferred while the matter was not concluded but now after conclusion of trial this accused has been acquitted by the court of Sri Vishal Srivastava, the then J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribagh by terms of the Judgment dated 13.08.2009. He further submitted that after the acquittal of this petitioner he renewed his prayer for release of iron scrap in his favour but the Court of Sri Vishal Srivastava, the then J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribagh again rejected his prayer by terms of order dated 16.09.2009 holding that even the petitioner acquitted from the case but it does not mean that he is the real owner of the seized iron scrap and also considered that the prayer for release was also rejected by the High Court. Aggrieved by that order this petitioner approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh numberd as Cr. Rev. 229/2009 but the Revisional Court also dismissed his prayer. Against these two orders, instant application has been preferred. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the seized scrap was purchased by him after due payment and he has also submitted those receipts but the court have failed to consider that after recording of acquittal the subject matter of seizure iron scraps could have been released in favour of this petitioner.;