^--^.'<-.-V·^-^J-^--U^-''C •- ^•.T-^^^^-^'-L^^^^^.^^^o^ '?• Singlelendi IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. J^2- /2009 PETITIONER Santu Ram s/o Khullu Ram Banjare, aged about 50 years, Occupation ~ Business, R/o Talapara, Bilaspur, Police Station - Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 48-^ OF THE CMMINAL PROCECECURE CODE J.^ffl^ ^w:^'-'^^- p ' <^A^ 1 Bs"'a"""" '^^l RESPONDENT :- HIGH <X>UKT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HOW*BLB MR. JU8TICB PRITINKBR DIWAKBR i^-e:^ I^:%^-.. APPLICANT ai.M.P.WO. 122/2009 Saatu Rain versus IION-APPLICANTS State of ChhatdsgaA Shri Arun Kochar, counsel for flie appUcant. Shri Vaibhav Gtoverdhan, P.L. for fhe State. PBTITION UNDBR 8BCTIOH 482 OF TSm CR.P.C. ORDBR (25.03.2010) Heani on adniission. The present petition filed iinder Section 482 Cr.P,C, is dirccted against fhe order dated 13.2,2009 passed by the Sessions judge, Bilaspur in Cr,Rev. No, 54/09 whercby the learaed Sessions judge has afiBrmed fhe order of Judicial Magistrate Pirst Class dated 29.12.2008. 2. Brief facts of (fae case are that upon receivmg secret information vehicle N0. MP-18/GA-0935 was intercepted by the poUce aad ia which 1 Va quintals of iron and tin scrap WQS found. The poUce authontles had issued notice uiider Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procediire but te failed to give aay document io. relation to the ownership of fhe scrap which was beiag teansported aiid after enquiry, oflfence under Section 379 of the IPC and 41 (1-4) Cr.P^C. was registered agai&st accused Vircndra Singh. TtU date fhe mvestigatioa has not been completed by the {K)Mce aad ownerahip offhe seized scrap has also notbeeii estabUshed. In fhe meaawhile, fhe petitioner filed ^a applicatton under Sectioii 457 offhe Cr,P,C. for releasiag ftoe said serap on supuixinaicia on the ground fhat he is fhe owner of fhe said scrap, After due consideration the said appMcation was rejected by fhe learaed Magistrate vide oider dated @? 29,12.2008 aad ia the rcvision fhe said order has teen affirmed. 3, Prom the order of titie Magistrate it appeara that fhe Court below has disbelieved fhe document Annexure P/l dated 30.11.08 on fhe groxind fhat no proper description of the petitioner or of the scrap has been given, The revisional Court has also disbelieved fhe dociiment aad whdle upholdiag the order of fhe Magistrate has held fhat the petitioner has fatled to satisfy fhe Court fhat the seized scrap belongs to him, The document as jBled by the petitioner dated 30.11.08 (Annexure P/l) does not matee it clear fhat fhe scrap which has been seiwd by fhe police i$ owned by fhe petitioner. Further while rejectmg the appHcation it has been obsewed by fhe Coixrts below fhat the iiivestigatioxi has not been completed, 4, In view of fhe findmgs and reason as given by the Coxirte below, I JBnd no reason to iaterferc wifh fhe order impugned. The petition has no substance and fherefore fhe same is dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate application before the trial Court after completioa of the mvestagatlon. — Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge