IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.382 of 2009 PARAMJIT SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.D.M.GAYA ----------- 5. 5.10.2010. Heard. The Cr.revision was posted before us for analogous hearing with Cr.W.J.C.No.198 of 2010. However, the Criminal Revision is being heard and disposed of while the criminal writ application will remain pending and the issue relating to genuineness of F.S.L. report will be decided therein. Initial prayer of the petitioner, Paramjit Singh, in Cr.Revision application was for quashing of the order dated 24.1.2009 passed by S.D.J.M., Sherghati in G.R.No.981A of 2008 appertaining to Barachatti P.S.Case No.302 of 2008, whereby the petition dated 23.12.2008 filed by the petitioner, with a prayer to release the truck bearing registration no.PB11U-9409, Chesis No.426010LXZ123141, Engine No.20L62245789, in his favour, had been rejected on the ground of the pendency of investigation in connection with aforesaid case. The further prayer of the petitioner was for issuance of an appropriate order of release 2 of aforesaid truck in his favour. During the pendency of the revision application, on account of some relevant developments, two Interlocutory Applications were filed by the petitioner, I.A.No.558 of 2009 was filed for seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the Criminal Revision application, in view of some development. The amended reliefs were (1)to quash the F.S.L. report received vide letter no.352, F.S.L. 24 of 2009 dated 25.2.2009, containing the opinion that no other than existing chesis no.3800108EG701177, could be found on the chesis of the truck marked-A, contrary to the police report dated 6.1.2009 wherein it is clearly recorded that the chesis number appears to be punched. (2)To quash the order dated 2.3.2009 passed in G.R.No.981A of 2008, pertaining to Barachatti P.S.Case No.302 of 2008 by I/C S.D.J.M., Sherghati whereby the vehicle in question has been released in favour of one Shiv Purari Tiwari, on the basis of a managed F.S.L. report. I.A.No.559 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner with a prayer to allow him to implead Shiv Purari Tiwary as Opposite Party no.2 as the truck in question has been released in his favour vide order dated 3 2.8.2009. Both Interlocutory Applications were allowed vide order dated 2.4.2009 and the notice was issued to newly added Opposite Party no.2. The state was also directed to file counter affidavit. Shiv Purari Tiwari, the newly added Opposite Party appeared through his counsel but he did not file any counter affidavit, neither the state has filed any counter affidavit in Cr.Revision application though in Cr.Writ No.198 of 2010 counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Petitioner owned a truck bearing registration no.PB11U-9409. The said truck was booked for transportation of some consignment and proceeded from Chandigarh to Orissa on 10.10.2008 with a consignment. Till 14.10.2008 at about 9.30 P.M., the petitioner had communication with the driver of the truck who at the relevant time was at a line hotel, near Barachhati. Thereafter, the petitioner lost contact with the driver of the truck. He came in search of the truck and finally lodged a written complaint at Barachatti police station, on the basis of which Barachatti P.S.Case No.302 of 2008 was instituted under Section 379 of the IPC. In course of search the petitioner 4 found his truck parked at a motor garage near Mufassil station Gaya, with a false registration no.BR-2J-0614. He identified the truck on the basis of “Khanda mark” of Sikh Religion embossed in front of the body and also from the tyres fitted with the truck. Immediately an information was given to the police and the truck was seized on 28.10.2008. The truck was produced before the S.D.J.M., Sherghati. In the meantime, one Shiv Purari Tiwary calimed ownership of the truck bearing registration no.BR-2J-0641. The investigating officer informed the court regarding institution of a police case and also made a request not to release the truck in favour of Shiv Purari Tiwari since investigation regarding ownership of truck is still going on. It was also submitted by the I.O. that unless the real chesis number and engine number of the seized truck is established by the expert, it should not be released in favour of any one. The investigating officer also filed an application on 11.11.2008, seeking permission from the court for examination of the truck by experts of the F.S.L. at Patna in order to establish the real chesis number and engine 5 number of the truck. The petitioner, in the meantime produced all relevant documents relating to the truck before the investigating agency. He also produced the receipt dated 2.8.2008, in support of this fact that recently he had purchased new tyres for the truck, which are still fitted in the truck. Petitioner came to know about the rival claim of Shiv Purari Tiwari, as such he filed petition on 23.3.2008 before the S.D.J.M., Sherghati for release of the seized truck in his favour, since, in fact it is a truck bearing registration no.PB11U- 9409. In the meantime, the investigating agency also verified the rival claims of petitioner and Shiv Purari Tiwari on the basis of documents produced by the petitioner Shiv Purari Tiwari. I.O., also noticed tampering with the chesis number of the truck, and an attempt to erase “Khanda mark” of Sikh religion, embossed in front of the body of truck. The tyre number purchased by the petitioner, also tallied with the tyres fitted in the seized truck. The investigating agency found that the details of the seized truck were matching with the details of the petitioner‟s truck. On 6.1.2009 the investigating officer 6 submitted its report before the S.D.J.M., Sherghati, giving almost a conclusive finding that the seized truck is actually the truck bearing registration no.PB11U –9409, which belongs to the petitioner and not to Shiv Purari Tiwari. The I/C S.D.J.M., Sherghati vide his order dated 24.1.2009 rejected the prayer of the petitioner regarding release of truck in his favour, ignoring the report dated 6.1.2009 submitted by the investigating officer, on the ground of pending investigation but surprisingly vide order dated 2.3.2009 the truck was released in favour of Shiv Purari Tiwari placing reliance on F.S.L. report and the owner book submitted by Opposite Party no.2, though at the relevant time, already the petitioner had challenged the genuineness of the F.S.L. Report as managed report. The owner book had also been alleged to be a manufactured document. The petitioner filed Revision application challenging the order dated 24.1.2009 passed by the S.D.J.M., Sherghati rejecting his claim for release of the truck, and also challenged F.S.L. report as well as release order dated 2.3.2009, whereby truck was released in favour of Opposite Party no.2. 7 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of Barachatti P.S.Case No.302 of 2008 has revealed that Shiv Purari Tiwari is the person, who has hijacked the truck of the petitioner, killed driver and Khalasi and looted away their properties, which also included their mobile phones. This evidence was collected by the investigating officer, when in course of investigation the looted mobile phones of the driver and Khalasi were recovered from the possession of some persons and on the basis of their confessional statements, material evidence were collected which indicated that Shiv Purari Tiwari was the person who had sold the mobile phones of the driver and Khalasi of hijacked truck to the person from whom persons making confessional statement had purchased the stolen mobile. Subsequently, Section 302 IPC was also added in Barachatti P.S.Case No.302 of 2008. The amended prayer of the petitioner in the I.A. was to quash. The F.S.L. report as contained in order dated 26.6.2009 wherein it has been reported that no other chesis number 380010ATEG701177 could be resorted on the chesis of the truck marked „A”. The F.S.L. report, was completely 8 contradictory the report submitted by I.O. on 6.1.2009 before the S.D.J.M., Sherghati, indicating that the real chesis of the truck in question has been tampered, erased and the number 380010ATEG701177 has been punched over it. In fact, the chesis number of the truck is 426010LXZ123141 its engine no.20L62245789 and model number is 2002, the Investigating officer in its report dated 6.1.2009 had stated that as per the owner book of truck bearing Registration No.PB11U-9404 the model of the truck is 2002, chesis no.426010LXZ123141, Engine No.20L62245789, Gear box No.2691825XZ301691, Rear excel No.516205XZ4155736. On comparison with owner book, and the parts of seized truck bearing Registration No.BRJ0714, it was found that Gear box number and excel number of this truck is same. Even tyre which was purchased by Paramjit Singh on 2.8.2008, and receipt of which has been produced, have been found fitted in seized hijacked truck, with same number. The report of I.O. dated 6.1.2009 also disclosed that the report submitted by the manufacturer of the truck, i.e., Tata Motors also indicates that truck seized was in fact, truck bearing 9 Registration No.PB11U-9404. The I/C S.D.J.M., Sherghati passed an order of release of vehicle in favour of Shiv Purari Tiwari on the basis of managed report of F.S.L., ignoring the claim of the petitioner as well as the report submitted by the investigating officer dated 6.1.2009. The Investigating Officer has submitted report before the S.D.J.M., Sherghati wherein detail of the truck hijacked from the possession of driver and Khalasi of the petitioner has been mentioned. It was the report in which all details of the seized truck was compared with the truck of the petitioner, and it was reported that all details are talling with the truck of the petitioner. This clearly indicated that Shiv Purari Tiwari has managed to get a manufactured owner book on the basis of some incorrect informations but in fact the truck in question is the same truck bearing registration no.PB11U-9409, which belongs to the petitioner. What is most surprising aspect of this matter, that the I/C S.D.J.M., Sherghati while passing an order of release in favour of Opposite Party no.2, completely ignored, the report submitted by the investigating officer before him on 6.1.2009. the S.D.J.M., Sherghati 10 did not think it proper to call for a report from the authorities of the F.S.L. regarding the genuineness of the F.S.L. report since the petitioner has also challenged the genuineness of the F.S.L.report. The S.D.J.M., Sherghati, if could have cared even a little bit, he should have called for report directly from the Director, F.S.L., Patna to examine the genuineness of the F.S.L. report since the report of the investigating officer dated 6.1.2009 clearly indicated, tampering with the chesis number of the seized truck. The S.D.J.M., Sherghati released the truck in favour of Opposite Party no.2 without properly being convinced about the ownership of the truck. He totally over-looked this aspect of the matter that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., it must be in accordance with law and only on consideration of relevant documents in support of the ownership of the vehicle, an order of release can be passed. The report of the investigating officer dated 6.1.2009 should have been considered by the I/C S.D.J.M., Sherghati, which touched all aspects of the matter, relating to the original parts of the truck, 11 including chesis number, engine number, excel number, gear box number, tyre number. There was no reason for ignoring this report while passing an order of release in favour of Shiv Purari Tiwari. The report of the investigating officer indicated, that all details completely tallied with the details of the truck of the petitioner. The most relevant aspect of this matter is that Shiv Purari Tiwari claimed his title over the truck on the basis of manufactured documents like owner book in which chesis number of the truck has been mentioned, of the model no.2002. The investigating officer, namely, Ashok Kumar, C.I.D, Patna in order to be confirmed about the genuineness of the chesis number mentioned in the owner book of Opposite Party No.2, enquired from the Tata Motors, manufacturer of the truck. The query was replied by the Tata Motors stating that no vehicle of 2002 model with such chesis number has either been manufactured by the Tata Motors or any of its dealers. This further confirmed the doubt regarding the tampering with the chesis number of the truck and manufacturing of the owner book on the basis of wrong details. 12 The S.D.J.M., Sherghati in his order dated 2.3.2009 did not discuss the background of the case in which the petitioner has earlier filed his application for release of the truck and now Shiv Purari Tiwari claiming to be the owner of the truck has prayed for its release in his favour. This was a case in which order should have been passed cautiously, only purely being convinced regarding documents produced in claim of ownership, but in a haste release order was passed in favour of Shiv Purari Tiwari. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the apparent illegality in the order passed by the S.D.J.M., Sherghati, the order dated 24.1.2009 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for release of the truck in his favour was rejected, and the order dated 2.3.2009 whereby truck in question has been released in favour of Shiv Purari Tiwari, are being quashed. The Criminal Revision Application is allowed. Opposite Party No.2, Shiv Purari Tiwari is directed to produce the released truck before the S.D.J.M., Sherghati. The S.D.J.M., Sherghati is directed to release the truck in favour of the petitioner Paramjit 13 Singh. The investigating agency is also directed to take all coercive steps for production of vehicle in question before the court below, so that the vehicle in question can be released in favour of the petitioner. We on proper consideration are of the view that I/C S.D.J.M., Sherghati has passed order dated 2.3.2009 releasing the truck in favour of Opposite Party No.2, completely against all judicial norms. A Judicial Officer, having a little bit of care for law and justice, could never have passed such order, unless it is passed for some extraneous consideration. As such, we refer the matter on the administrative side for appropriate action against the officer who was officiating as S.D.J.M., Sherghati on 2.3.2009. B.Kr. ( Mridula Mishra,J. ) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)