IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.706 of 2009 Shree Prakash Singh son of Late Rameshwar Singh, Proprietor of Patliputra Tobaco Company, Patna, resident of Mohalla- Rekha House, New Dak Bunglow Road, Charkothia, Police Station- Kotwali, Town and District- Patna. … Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar … Opposite Party. ----------- 6. 02.09.2011 This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh Patna in Bakhtiyarpur P. S. Case No. 40 of 1994 by which the prayer of the informant petitioner for release of Rs.56,000/- has been rejected. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.3.1994, Rs.94,654/- was looted by the accused from the vehicle No. Mahendra Max BR- 1B-960 during the highway dacoity at Lakhanpur N. H. 30, Bakhtiyarpur. When the salesmen of Patliputra Tobacco Company, Patna along with the driver and others were proceeding to Fatuha, Khairapur, Champapur, Bhakhtiyarpur for supply of cigarette and other articles and collected Rs. 94,654/- from the customers. Bhakhtiyarpur P. S. Case No. 40 of 1994 was instituted under Section 395 I.P.C. During 2 investigation the accused were arrested and a total Rs.56,000/- out of Rs.94,654 was recovered from them as mentioned in the seizure list. During investigation the accused confessed their guilt and also confessed that the seized amount is of looted amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 24.3.1994 a petition was filed by the informant- driver and proprietor of Patliputra Tobacco Company in the Court of learned ACJM to release the recovered seized looted amount of Rs.56,000/- in favour of Proprietor of the company. A report was called for from the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer submitted his report dated 3.5.1994. (Annexure-2) with a view to release the entire seized amount in favour of Sri Prakash Singh, Proprietor of M/s Patliputra Tobacco Company on proper bond. The petitioner again filed a petition on 27.5.1994 for the same after the report of I. O. but the same was rejected by the learned ACJM on 3.8.1994 (Annexure-3) on the ground that the claim of Rs.30,000/- had also been made by the accused and despite the report of the Investigating Officer in favour of the 3 petitioner the prayer of the petitioner was refused. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Cr. Revision No. 392 of 1994 which was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Barh vide order dated 5.4.1999. It has further been submitted that even after lapse of nine years from 5.4.1999 to 29.7.2008, no one has claimed for the looted amount. All the accused persons were granted bail and they have been absconding. The petitioner filed a petition on 29.7.2008 again before the learned ACJM for the release of the seized amount of Rs.56,000/- after a long gap which has been rejected vide order dated 29.7.2008 on the same day on the ground that it appears from the order dated 3.8.1994 that the accused had made a claim over Rs.30,000/- out of Rs.56,000/- which was seized from their possession. It has further been submitted that the seized amount is the amount which was looted from the vehicle of the proprietor of the aforesaid tobacco company. The accused have been absconding and the proceeding of the case is lingering since a long time. The seized amount may be released on proper surety. Learned A.P.P. for the State has fairly 4 submitted that the report of the Investigating officer is in favour of the petitioner and he has no objection if the amount is released in favour of the petitioner on due surety. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that a dacoity was committed on the highway in which Rs.94,654/- was looted from the vehicle of Patliputra Tobacco Company Patna out of which Rs. 56,000/- was recovered from the possession of the accused. The prayer of the petitioner for release of the said amount was rejected on the ground that the accused have also made claim over Rs.30,000/-. The occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and the case is still pending and the accused are absconding since a long time. No one has come forward to claim the money further. The police has also submitted its report in favour of the petitioner and it has no objection if the amount is released in favour of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances state above, the impugned order is set aside. The learned ACJM, Barh is directed to release the aforesaid amount of 5 Rs.56,000/- in favour of the petitioner on proper verification that he is the owner of the aforesaid Patliputra Tobacco Company. He will also furnish a surety bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount with an undertaking that he will return the amount subject to the decision of the learned trial court. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)