IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18045 of 2007 Bhim Sah, Son of Late Lalji Sah, resident of Kumhar Toli, P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna ----------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar - -------- Opp.Party ---------- For the petitioner : Mr. Tilak Sao , and Rajesh Mohan, Advocates. For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. _______ O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 8.2.2007 passed by Sri Krishna Mohan Srivastava, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court no.I, Patna, in Criminal Revision No.930 of 2006, confirming the order dated 13.11.2006 passed in Kadam Kuan P.S. Case no.783 of 2006 , registered under Section 414 I.P.C. by Sri Manoj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Patna, whereby he has rejected the petition of the petitioner for release of the seized articles in his favour, and has prayed for quashing of both the orders aforementioned. It appears that the aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner on 4.9.2006 on the basis of the self-statement of Sub- Inspector Rama Kant Singh, Officer Incharge, Kankarbagh Police Station, wherein it was inter alia alleged that 50 numbers of old aluminium sheets of small and large size and 120 pieces of aluminium pipes were recovered from a room in the petitioner’s house. It is alleged that the same were stolen from buses, trucks and trains. These were allegedly seized under a seizure list when the - 2 - petitioner, on demand, allegedly, could not produce any documents in support of his lawful possession over the said articles. Later on, after due investigation the police submitted a charge sheet under Section 414 I.P.C. against the petitioner. Assailing the impugned order it was submitted that the petitioner is in possession of a license from the Government of Bihar for dealing in old aluminium scrap whereunder he is authorized to purchase and sell aluminium utensils/ articles from his shop running in the name and design of “Priya Vartan Bhandar” and he was also an Income tax payee. It was further submitted that it was in connection with his business that he had purchased the seized items from Md. Abbas and Narendra Kumar and that the police had illegally seized the articles notwithstanding his being in possession of purchase receipts dated 31.8.2006 and 2.9.2006 which were shown to the police without yielding any palpable benefit. It was finally submitted that for an offence under Section 414 I.P.C. there is a requirement that there must be a report regarding the theft of the property which is the subject of the charge prior to the seizure thereof and the accused should have known or had reason to believe that it was stolen property which he was trying to conceal or make away with. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be well founded and full of reasonability and rationality. Admittedly, in the instant case no case of theft of the seized items appears to have been registered at any police station prior to the seizure of the seized items from the room in the house of the - 3 - petitioner. That apart the petitioner had produced purchase receipts vouchsafe his ownership of the seized items. The reasonings assigned by the two courts below for rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for release of the articles in his favour does not auger well for without there being a reported case of those items having been stolen, the seized items could not be treated to be material exhibit of this case. In the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned orders of the two courts below cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, they are quashed and the application is allowed. The learned Magistrate in seisin of the case will release the seized items in favour of the petitioner on furnishing proper security. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 23rd January,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.