0) IJMJTHE illGKCOU^TJ)FJUDJCATUR^QF CHHATT1SGARHAT BILASPUR CRMPNO. '9^1 Y2011 APPLICANT .. •iS.--""^?\^"^'' <y:^i%'^^^ ^:...-^"'^^^ '^••••" ^^^ MUSHTAKIM KHAN S/o Yusuf Khan, aged about 21 years (Wrongly mention in impugned order mushtakin khan) R/o Talapara Police station Civil lines District Bilaspur(C.G.) \)< VERSUS RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh, through. -;_ .Police Station, -€hakateteta=_District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) APPLICATION UNDERSECTION 48fcOF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR QUASHf^ENT OF THE ORDERS OF THE SUBORDINATE COURTS \ \ ?^V-78 •'II^F'^II^NT •gsrrsn^raiiiTC TST •^wwy, wx\iv\&, V^^wy IA^) HWWl *W^) D •W^ITI^>' (' SB : Hon'bieShri Manindra Mohbn Shrivastava. J. panfes 30-11-2011 Shri Dhirendra Pandey, coi Shri Ashish Gupte, Panel L Witti the consent ofthe This petition under Seciioi 12/08/2011 passed in revision petitioners claim for interim custo<] Learned counsel for the pef were seized from the possession w'thout any basis, the offences hi suspicion that the material is si| submitted a biil dated 2/4/201 1 wi] possession of the petitioner. application for interim custody ha< in revlsion. On the other hand, tearnedl made from the possession of property and the matter is stiil un( filed. Learned State counsei aisol petitioner claims the seized item^ and looking to the nature of aitegji petitioner, the investigation may b|s The iron scrap and other ttie possession of the petitione( Though learned counsfei for the p| +i''<tcii1-< •v^if fe^ <fa^i< ^stfwsn^r jjnset for the petitioner. .^wyer for the State. ,, the matter is heard finaily. 482 CrPC has been fiied against order dated ^nweby the order dated 13/06/2011 rejecting (y of seized property has been affirmed. (itioner submitted that iron scrap and other items ()f the petitioner on 1 9/04/2011. He submits that (ve been registered against the petitioner on the ^spected to be a theft properiy. He has aiso jich cieariy shows a valid source and authority of (gnoring these material aspects, p^itioner's been rejected by the Court below and affirmed thle i State counsel submits that the seizure has been petitioner suspecting the material to be theft ter investigation and charge sheet has not been Isubmits that the bill, on the strength of which the under his authority, is a matter of investigation itions, if the material is released in favour of the adversely affected. hiaterials have been sazed on 19/04/2011 from suspecting the same to be a theft pr.operty. 'titioner submits that he has purchased the items ^/ c 'rsr ^n^n^r, 'g~fflT!TTS, l^rray ..&-,j?.....!^.:..^.^ ai^wml^nT wiiw^ianR; Deepti sn^i 'v^e (^^s-s, ^' datfed also Wltt) as evidenced bythe cash bill and the veracrty of the same is am not inclined to interfere interim custody. The petitionerj appijcatfon forcustody, if no chai|ge upon filing ofeharge sheet which^ver ^d 2/4/2011, the same is a matter of investigation under investigadon. Therefore, at this stage, 1 the order rejecting petHJoner's appiication for however, would be at iiberty to revive his sheet is fited within a period of two months or is eariier. The petition is finally disposed off. -_.--- L EBrafeTCt^ 'spraS 4 fs<ar -TFSR^K' ^s s'Svi SIT^T Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge <?' •snrS^a'ito (ii;"iirt?, (rarcira—i's/140—2/2011—i,so,ooo.