(—• ^•.•"v .1'st yi BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.t -20n Cr. M.P. No. Ll /ze®» ^- PETITINER .•o •^s^ >\&...'" ^^^:· "^' .;•. ••"^^s \>'' ^^•"IA^^''^ Mohd. Firoz, S/oMohd. Farukh, 3ged about 33 years, R/o Ring road Ambikapur, P.S. and Tahsil-Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Surguja, Ambikapur and also thr@t.l|ih P.S. Udaipur (C.G.), (it has not been mention in the order impugned), APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODEOF CRIMINM. PRQCEDURE 1974. HLQHC^PRT^O^CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE MR. JU8TICE PRITIMKER DIWAKBR CR.MJ*. N0. 16/2010 APPLICANT RBSPONDBNT versus Mohd. Piroz State of CIihattisgarh Shri Siuifl Tripatbi, coiinsel for the appUcant Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State/applicaat. APPLICATIQN UNDER SBCVION^^Q^THECK.P.C. ORDBR (16.07.2010) ChaBenge in fhe present petition is to the ordcr dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Siuguja (Ambikapiir) ui Cr. Rev. No. 126/09 whereby affirmiag fhe order of the learaed Magistrate dated 7.11.09, the revisiotial Court has refused to graat supurdginaiua of the scrap weighiug about 8 toniies aud amounting to Rs. 40,000. 2. Bnef facts of the casc are that on 26.7.09, truck bearing Registeation No. CG-15A/7145 was apprehended by the police of police station Udaipur, district Suiyija and about 8 toimes of scrap was found in the said vehicle. It is the ftu-tber case of prosecution that at the relevant time, driver of fhe vehicle has faUed to produce any dociuaent in respect of ownership of fhe said scrap and based on suspicion tbc istgcisawas registered. 3. The appUcation which was filed by tbe appUcant zuider Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected by fhe leamed Magistrate vide order dated 7.8.09 (Annexiire A/6). Agamst this order, the revision was preferred however, fhe sanie was also disruissed by the revisional Coiirt on 9.09.09 (Aanexure A/2). However, Uberty was graated to ftie appUcant to file fresh petttion before •the leamed Magistrate. The fi-esb petition was filed before the leamed Magistrate but fhe same was also dismissed vjde order dated 25.9.09 aad it has been held by the Magistrate fhat fix>in fhe documents flled by the pctitioner it is not clear that he is fhe owner of fhe scrap. This order was assaUed by thc petitioner by filing a cruniaal revision and vide impugned order dated 9.12.09, ftie revisional Court has also rcfused to grant supurdgmaina of the scrap in favour of the petitioner. 4. Contention of Shri Tripafhi, coiiasel for the petitioner is that aU fhe related docuinents have been filed by petitioner and they are before this Court also on which basis it is apparent that the petitioner is the bonafide purcHaser of fhe scrap. He furtfaer submits that the petitioner is wffliag to give adequate sscurity to fhe satisfaction of the leamed Magistrate and tiU date no offence has been registered again.st anyone, therefore, fhe seized article be givcn to Wm. 5. On the other hflnd, State counsel opposes fhc prayer as niade by Shri Tripafhi. 6. I liave heard counsel for the parties aad perused the inaterial available on record. 7. Considering fhe totaUty of fhe case, in particular fhe documents and the related facts, the fact that tiU date no case has been registered agaiast anyone and fhere is no clann put forth by anyone fhat fhe said scrap belongs to him or was stolen, without furffaer entering iuto fhe merits oftfae case, I am. iaclmed to release fhe scrap on supurdgmama in favour of fhe petttioner. Lcamed Magistrate wiU release fhe said scrap ia favour of fhe petitioner after imposuig suitable condition iacludiag the suitable security. In the result, fhc petition succeeds. Sd/- pntinkerDiwaker