IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1088 of 2006 NAND KISHORE CHOUDHARY @ LALLU CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 6.5.2009 This revision application is directed against the order dated 22.1.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Purnea in Cr.Appeal No.69 of 1993/ Tr.No.32 of 1998, whereby he set aside the order dated 20.5.1998, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Purnea in C.A. Case No.405 of 1983, whereby he directed the concerned Officer-Incharge to release the seized logs in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had filed a complaint in the year 1983 alleging that the accused persons including the petitioner has cut his Sisam tree which was standing in his plot. The petitioner was convicted in the year 1987 under section 427 of the Penal Code. However, in appeal, the conviction was set aside. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application before the trial court for release of the log in question. The trial court by order dated 20.5.1993 has released the log in favour of the petitioner. The complainant filed an appeal before the Appellate Court which was allowed. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Court has committed grave error on record holding that the petitioner no where states that the log in question belongs to him. He further submits that 2 KHAN the complainant P.W. 3 in paragraphs 9 and 11 in fact has stated that the petitioner claims that the log in question belongs to him. Learned counsel for the Opposite party opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and states that the petitioner never claimed that the log belongs to him. It is well settled by a decision of this court in the case of Harihar Singh Vs Neel Kant Singh, reported in 1957 Patna 685 that the goods seized in respect of bonafide dispute should be released in favour of a person from whose possession the same was seized. Having heard counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record and in view of the settled position of law, this court finds that the materials weigh in favour of the petitioner and as such the order dated 22.1.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Purnea is set aside. The seized log is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner till the dispute about land on which log was standing, is decided by a competent Civil Court. In case the Opposite party succeeds in civil suit, the petitioner would have to compensate. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)