d WK m «I‘HE Hierx COURT o? JUDiCAiUEE 23? BgwPUR _gc.<3.i Writ petition No.~_f£7~’jg__/2oo2. Kapiles‘nwar Prasad Patel, aged aboxtt 80 Yeaxxs :‘i/o I gihri Ram Charan, R o village Kurrubhata, 9ost-i\3ahar§al i , Tan. Kharsia, Digtt. Raj.garh,(C.G.) VER$US z” ‘xgyomupm'la Ml) The State of Ckl‘nattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Raipur (C.G. ) The tauperintendent cf Police, Janjgir, Distt. JanjgirmChgm-Qa (C.G.) Station House O;Ef icer , Police Station - Sajcti, Distt. Janjg‘ir—Chaxrgua (C‘GJ (4v) ishwar E>rzxs&c'i, aged about 45 S/o Gosai Raxm, R/o Jhongra, Tah. Sakti, DiSt‘c. Janjgir-Champa(CG), (3) y“ mmgvg IT zQN mum , 9g;ENDIA : x” ' W,/ mtri‘ggg; 225/2g‘7 Qaggp c0§E$T':‘TUTIoN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1498 OF 2002 Petitioner ' Kapileshwar Prasad Patel Versus espondents The State of Chhattisgarh & Others RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) P resent :— Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents No.1' to 3. Shri V.R.Tiwari, Advocate‘for the respondent No.4 ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 18‘“ day of November, 2010) 1. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Tractor belonging to the petitioner bearing Registration No. MP 26-E/2667 and Engine No. 59228. 207082, was seized by the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. on 30.1 .2002. 2. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shakti, on accepting the statement of the police omcer, came to the conclusion that the above stated Tractor was never seized, that was lying in the Police Station, as there was some mechanical defect in the Tractor. The petitioner was free to take the same without any problem, vide order dated 5.2.2002 (Annexure P/4). Thereagainst, the petitioner approached the Additional Session Judge, Shakti, in Criminal Revision. The Additional Session Judge, Shakti, by order dated 12.6.2002 (Annexure P-6) affirmed the finding recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and R W A came to the same conclusion that ihe Tractor was never seized and the petitioner was free to take the Tractor away from the Police Station. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached the Police Station for taking the Tractor, the same was not allowed to be taken by the petitioner. On 2.7.2002 the Tractor was seized under property seizure memo (Annexure P- 10). Thus, this writ petition. It appears that there is some confusion in action and statement by the police officer. Though the writ is not maintainable, however, having regard to the facts situation of the case, if an application is made to the Chief J'udiciai Magistrate, Shakti against the subsequent seizure, ‘under provisions of iaw, the Magistrate shall examine the matter in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order on its own merits, at the earliest, considering the ‘ fact that the petition has been pending consideration in the High Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with above observation. No‘order asto costs. ashok