IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27527 of 2007 SHAMBHU PRASAD s/o Sri Baiju Sah, of Dharamsamaj Chowk, P. S. Chhatauni, Dist. East Champaran. … Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR … Opp. Party For the Petitioner. .. Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, Advocate. For the State .. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 4. 07.08.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Order taking cognizance under Sections 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is sought to be assailed on the ground that the materials in question, truck and the seized kerosene oil have already been released in favour of genuine owners and therefore the involvement of the petitioner is ruled out. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has also submitted that there was nothing in the case-diary except statement of driver before the police. In the opinion of this Court, release of material during the pendency of criminal case in terms of Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. is only subject to the result of the criminal case and therefore the release of the material or truck cannot be a circumstance for not taking cognizance if materials are there in the case- diary substantiating the allegation. 2 In the present case, in fact the informant’s version finds support from the statement of driver showing the involvement and complicity of the petitioner and therefore it cannot be said that there was no material in the case diary so as to take cognizance of the offence and summoning of the petitioner. That being so, order taking cognizance does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, this application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)