$3ingle malt IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. MP. No. ‘0 /2009 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PETITIONER Devdhari Prasad Gupta S/o. Laxmi Prasad Gupta, Aged 2. Mineral Officer, Mineral Branch, Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Forest Range Officer, Dharamjaigarh. Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Tahsildar, Dharamjaigarh Distt.— Raigarh ‘(C.G.) Being aggrieved by the order passed in Criminal ReViSion No 79/09 passed on 25/08/09 (Annexure P/1/I/by the court of ThiK/‘ Additional SeSSions Judg/e/Raigarh, District —Raigarh (C.G.), Presided over by Shri N.K.S. Thakur, thereby dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner and (fconfirming the order passed on 08/06/0’l9/ by the Court of Judiéfal Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), Presided over by Shri D.S. Ganvir, petitioner prefers this petition of the following facts and grounds amongst others:- \ _ .""'\9 €6< ' ' ..égygg'é-“xsa 5"9;? g . about 45 years, R/o. Village— Gurturaama,Tahsil — Sitapur, Distt. Q V‘ ‘w ,¢ wx “’ww f @Q9\vwVIM Sarguja (C.G.) /5/\,\) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: S.D.O. (Revenue) Dharamjaigarh, Distt.- Raigarh ‘ HIeH COURT OF CHHAm55ARH AT BILASPUR. Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pri‘rinker' Diwak’er ar‘My‘ No. 609 of 2909 > PETITIONER Devdhari Pmsad Gupta Versus . Sm're of Chhnmsgarh RESPONDENT Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel far the pefifioner. § Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, P L for the Smfe. V’ PETITIOg UNQER SECTION 482 OF THE COQE OF A i CRIMINAL PROCEDURE If ‘ ‘ ‘ O R D E R (22.01.2010,) ' ‘ Wi’rh The consent of the parties, me .matfer is heqr¢ finally. ‘ Present pe‘ii'rion is directed agains'r the under dafed , 25.8.2009 passed by Third Addifianal Sessions Judge, §aiggrh ‘ in Criminal Revision No. 79/2009offirming The order dated 8.6.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh whereby petitioner's application filed under Sectionf45xj7‘ for releasing the seized coal on Supurdginama has been’rejected; ‘_ ‘ i 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizedceal x was purchased by the petitioner on 1.5.2009 fromM/s. Indgani Coal through commission agent andtill date no case whatsoever" has been registered either by the Forest Department or by H Mining Department against anyone. He submits thatno harm -’ would be caused if the said coal is given to the petitionerhon Supurdignama. ! n i <9 3. Counsel for the STaTe submits tha‘l’ he has n9 cbjgcfipn if The coal is released an Supur‘dginama but lacking 'foihe‘" quantify of coal, petitianer may be directed to, furni§h adequate surety for the same. 4. In the facts 6; circumstances of the case; petition succeeds and order dated 25.8.2009 is set aside. {Coai is; directed to be released on Supurdginama in favour of the i petitioner on his furnishing surety of ks. 50,000/‘i. Ifyrathe _ petitioner wants to seii the same, he will take prior permission t of concerned authority who has seized the,same. ‘M ‘ {x SM I a. l. Pritinker Diwaker l Judge \\ w *1 l