IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53215 of 2007 SHATTRUNDAM SHAHI, SON OF SHRI RAN VIJAY SHAHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUMARIA, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN ---------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RANANJAY SHAHI, SON OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR SHAHI, RESIDENT OF DUMARIA, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN. -------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 23/04/2010 Heard. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Trial No. 2337 of 2007 arising out of Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 204 of 2005 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate has released logs of wood recovered from the possession of the petitioner in favour of the opposite party No. 2. The background of the case is that the Manager of the opposite party No. 2 filed a case of theft against the present petitioner for the subject matter mentioned above and the same was recovered from his possession. Subsequently, a charge sheet under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was also submitted by the Police finding the story of theft to be correct. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a petition before the court below praying that since the logs of wood belongs to him and they were recovered from him, should be released in his favour, since he was real owner of the said wood en logs. On hearing the opposite party No. 2 and the D.P.O., - 2 - the Magistrate passed the order impugned also considering a police report that the article belongs to the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, on 6.4.2009, the logs of wood were finally released and physically handed over to the opposite party No. 2. On the last occasion, by an order dated 11.2.2009, the opposite party No. 2 was noticed who has appeared before this Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was not heard before the impugned order was passed and since, the logs have been recovered from his possession, the ownership of which was disputed between the parties, it should not have been released in favour of the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 contends that in fact, the petitioner had not appeared till the day, the order for release was passed and he appeared in the case only on 28.8.2006 and, therefore, he was rightly not heard by the court below. The further submission is that since the logs of wood have already been released in favour of the opposite party No. 2, at this stage, this Court may not reverse the said order since it has already changed its character. It is also contended that since the Police had found the case of theft true against the petitioner, the subject matter being stolen property, the petitioner was not entitled to the same, more so, because the opposite party No. 2 was held to be the rightful owner. - 3 - In the light of the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that the order impugned requires no interference. In the result, this application is dismissed. However, this order will not prejudice the rival contentions of the parties at any further stage. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)