IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47539 of 2007 SANJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 10/2/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2007 in Criminal Revision No.92/2007, arising out of the order dated 23.2.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Banmankhi P.S. Case No.47/06 by which both the courts have refused to release the seized articles even after pronouncement of the judgement after trial. The police case was that during patrolling 10 spans of 33 K.V.A., Purnea, Banmankhi Feeder Cable of Aluminum was found cut and stolen. The length of the wire was approximately 4.5 k.ms. The Board had, therefore, suffered a financial loss of Rs.1,76,909/-. The occurrence took place on 19.2.2006. The place of occurrence was in between Siswa village to Pusarwaghat. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown by the Assistant Electrical Engineer. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against six accused including the father of the petitioner while the investigation was kept pending for ascertaining the other accused involved in the incident. 2 On 20.2.2006, a raid was conducted at the factory premises of one of the six named accused i.e., Sheo Narain Chaudhary leading to recovery of Aluminum electrical wires and other items. Banmankhi P.S. Case No.47/06, corresponding to T.R. No.2942/06 ended in acquittal of those charge-sheeted when an application for release of the seized articles was filed by the petitioner claiming to be the owner of the goods in question as also of the factory in question from which it was stated to have been recovered. Rejection of this application by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23.2.2007, led to the present revision application, presently impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he was never charge-sheeted and made an accused in the trial. The order dated 20.4.2007, when the revisional court, dissatisfied with the manner in which the trial had been conducted, remanded the matter for retrial which has not been questioned by any of the six who are made an accused and who stood to benefit by the acquittal or prejudiced by the order of remand. There is no occasion for this Court in the present application to test the order of remand when it has been assailed by none. 3 Since the trial has been directed afresh, any alleged claimant of the wires in question has an adequate remedy available to him to move afresh for release of the same in accordance with law. At this stage, this Court considers it only prudent to notice that while in paragraph-11 of the revisional order it has been stated that the seized wire was recovered at the instance of the accused persons, hidden in the river suggesting that the wires were not scrap Aluminum, as claimed by the present petitioner, the seizure list itself demonstrates that the seizure was from a factory premises wherein another has been described as the owner. These are matters to be more appropriately considered in any application for release preferred afresh which shall have to be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the refusal of this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.4.2007. The order of remand dated 20.4.2007 having not been questioned, the petitioner having adequate remedy for release of the seized articles, any application afresh by him for the purpose shall not be prejudiced merely by reason of the earlier rejection for release in light of the discussions contained in the present order with regard to the place of recovery. 4 The Court hearing the release application shall proceed in accordance with the law laid down in 2002(10) S.C.C. 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujerat). The application is thus disposed on the aspect of release to be re-considered in terms of the directions contained herein. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)