'r. M.P. I l 8 [200 Mohd. Wajid s/o Mohd. Shakur, é aged about 32 years, R/o Purana Basti, Katghora, District— Korba (C.G.). PETITIONER a, :\>\:&5\J§ °‘° W“ VERSUS RESPONDENT :— State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Polic Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 48{OF THE CRIMINAL a PROCECECURE CODE c 9 e - HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘I‘TIGGARH AT 31w W W SB : HON’BLE MR. JU8TI¢E PRITINKER DWAKIR , cxmym. 118/2009 Mohd. Wajid m State of Chatn'sgarh h Shli Arun Kochar, counsel for t applicant. Shr Vaibhav Gordhan, P.L. for the Statt. PEITION UNDER m0 48 P TH RR. W T " 2 O E OO ORDER 25.oa.2010) Heard on admission. The present petiu‘on filed under Secion 482 CLEO. i directed against the Older dated 13.2.2009 sse y he Sessions judge, Bilaspur n Cr.ev. No. 5309 whereby th learned Sessions judge has aEed the order of Judicial Ma s 8 rm gistrate First Clas dated 30.12.200. 2. Brief facts of the case are that upon receivng secre information vehicle NO. C- 12/E 0558 was interceted by t police an in whn.4 quitals of n an u'n may was found. The poli authorities had issued notice under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedum but he failed to ive any document in relauon to the ownership of the scrap which was being transported and after enquixy, ah‘ence'j. under Section 379 of the IPC and 41 (1-4) CLRC. was registered against the driver and helper namdy Pawan and , Prahlad. Till date the investigation has not been completed by the police and ownership of the seized scxap has also not 1 been established. In the meanwhile, the pen'tioner Mohd. ' Wajid died an application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing the said scrap on supuldnama on the ground that he is the owner of. the said sczap. After due ‘ consideration the said application was rejected by the 1 ”ON—APPLICANTS he i ve ‘ t s pad b t i R / e i t G p he d e/2 n im d ce g { learned Magisuate Vida Omar datcd 30.12.2008 md in thc revision the said order has been ammed. 3. F‘rom the order of the Magisirate it appears that the Court below has disbelieved the document Annexure P/ 1 dated 7.9.08 On the ground that no pmper description of the petitioner or of the scrap has been given. The revisional Court has also disbeljeved the document and while upholding the order of the Magistrate had held that the peu'tioner has failed to satisfy the Court that the seized scrap belongs to him. The document as hled by the petitioner dated 7.9.08 (Annexuxe P] 1) doa not make it clear that the scrap which has been seized by the police is owned by the petin'oner. Further While rejecting the application it has been observed by the Courts behw that the investigation has not been completed. 4. In view of the nndings and reason as given by the Courts below, I nnd no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The petition has no substance and therefore the same is dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to iile appropriate application before the trial Court aher complen'on of the investigation. era Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge