Cr. M.P. No4°4 /20ll •J ^.-•\ <:i-'^ :^. "V Applicant >^> ^%^- \'s- ,.^ '; „; .-WS 'i :• "3-WW Ram Kumar Mishra, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Jeevraakhan, presently posted as Upper Divisional derk (Store Keeper) at the officer Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sau Shiya Distt. Hospital, Korba, Resident OfQ. No. 1/4, Ward No. 46, Balgi Pariyojna, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba VERSUS Non- Applicant The State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Korba APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL ••y^i^..v^^- »Xw»u-a''-i!»y^ ^':,l^!ai,,wu^sslS!i .fS^S:^:-S-» //°^~\ 8 'VS-ssssss XI-HC—7S -s^ ^w^^,w^vf^, i^rray /"^it^.\^^ sn^i iT5R7 ("rt*(S?i) sn^i'^il^iR; g%3]^?igRW TOnwatow^i 'qiNwft''! •W:RTf l? fS^ ^ SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohad 11-07-2011 Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel Shri Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lavt l-1eard. Though, time was granted to instructions in the matter, but, even 1|i some more time. Learned counsel for the peq case for commission of offence undi Penal Code or any other law for registered against the petitioner til| which has been seized, is lying witll or the applicant. ver for the State. learned counsel for the State to seek pday, learned State counsel prays for joner submits that even though, no ir any of the provisions of the Indian the time being in force, has been date, yet the petitioner's property, the Investigating Authority. Learned counsel submits that in these circurtistances, the Courts below were not justified in rejecting application of the| ofthe articles seized. On the other hand, lea circumstances, in which, the article v applicant, it reveals commission of .Iproduce any document of ownershi seized. He further submits that con; has been seized, if interim custod' petitioner, the identity of the said submits that the property is not ev ground of delay in investigation, tl claimed and the Courts below have applicant. Shrivastava, J. applicant for grant of interim custody rned counsel submits that the )as seized from the possession of the offence, as the petitioner failed to t>, at the time when the article was idering the nature of the property, it of the property is granted to the Iproperty would be lost. He further 'n perishable item and only on the )e prayer for release could not be [•ightly rejected the application of the Xl-HC—78 •3'°?^OTT^T, ^flTTW?, f^TOy sn^'^lyfe Aai^agnNT Tumane The order passed by the lea petitioner's revision against rejecti|3n of his application by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, for interitn custody, has been rejected taking into consideration the'teircumstancet has been stated ih the 'order that at .M.t, possession of the petiti^ner, no bills the shop has petitioner. tw stated that he However, on the other hand, petitioner that till date, no offence h^ In these circumstanGes, it is Court below keeping in view this partj With the aforesaid observatiort, ned Sessions Judge shows that the , in which, the-article was seized. It the time when it was found from the were available. In addition, owner of has not sold any such item to the iubmission of learned counsel for the s been alleged against the petitioner could not be denied by learned 'coui|sel for the respondent, even though time was granted on morejtian one cjccasion. directed that in case, no offence is Tegistered against the petitiofler for (^ommission of any offence under the provisions ofthe I.P.C. or arry-other l^w for the time being in force within a period of one month from the date (}f receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner would be at liberty to revi\(e his application for grant of interim custody of the property seized and f^ie same shall be considered by the bular aspect of the matter. the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge