Md. Javed Vs. State of Jharkhand

Md. Javed vs State of Jharkhand

Disposition Petition allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Oct 24, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/523001

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/523001
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: D.K. Sinha, J.
Decided On: Oct 24, 2008
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Md. Javed

Respondent

State of Jharkhand

Legal References

Reported In: [2008(4)JCR688(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 516 of 2007 for the offence under section 414 of the indian penal code, section 30(2) of the coal mines act and section 33 of the indian forest act, having been satisfied the learned cjm hazaribagh released the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing bond of rs. 7,00.000/- with two sureties of the like amount each and pursuant to that order the petitioner had filed bond and accordingly it was directed to be released but on 4.3.2008 it was communicated to the court concerned that the confiscation proceeding no. 7,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the cjm hazaribagh in connection with mandu p......earlier order dated 3.3.2008.3. according to the learned counsel, the order impugned dated 4.3.2008 passed by the learned cjm hazaribagh was beyond his jurisdiction as he was lacking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure to recall his own order.4. the fir was instituted on 13.12.2007 and thereafter the confiscation proceeding was initiated for confiscation of the seized truck and 100 bags of coal loaded thereon but the fact regarding the confiscation proceeding being initiated before the d.f.o. ramgarh was communicated to the cjm after the order was passed on 3.3.2008 for release of the truck and 100 bags of coal and no revision was preferred by the competent authority of the state for setting aside the order.5. mr. r.r. mishra, the learned g.p. ii, fairly conceded the point of law as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.6. in such circumstances, i find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the learned cjm, hazaribagh was not within his competence to recall his own order and the impugned order dated 4.3.2008 is barred by jurisdiction and it is set aside.7. accordingly, this petition is allowed with the modification in the impugned order dated 4.3.2008 that truck no. br 18-6556 would be released in favour of the petitioner md. javed on furnishing indemnity bond of rs. 7,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the cjm hazaribagh in connection with mandu p.s. case no. 516 of 2007 corresponding to g.r no. 4568 of 2007 subject to the decision of the confiscation proceeding no. 2 of 2008 pending before the dfo ramgarh. it is further directed to the petitioner to cooperate with the confiscation proceeding and to take appropriate steps on the date fixed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

D.K. Sinha, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer, for issuance of an appropriate writ by setting aside the order impugned dated 4.3.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby he recalled the earlier order dated 3.3.2008 whereby the seized truck No. BR 18-6556 loaded with 100 bags of coal was directed to be released in favour of the petitioner.

2. The main contention of the petitioner is that by order dated 3.3.2008 on the petition of the petitioner for release of the truck No. BR 18-6556 which was seized in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No. 516 of 2007 for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 30(2) of the Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, having been satisfied the learned CJM Hazaribagh released the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing bond of Rs. 7,00.000/- with two sureties of the like amount each and pursuant to that order the petitioner had filed bond and accordingly it was directed to be released but on 4.3.2008 it was communicated to the Court concerned that the confiscation proceeding No. 2 of 2008 was initiated by the D.F.O. Ramgarh against the seized truck and 100 bags of coal loaded thereon and therefore, the CJM finally declined to issue the release by the order dated 4.3.2008 by recalling the earlier order dated 3.3.2008.

3. According to the learned Counsel, the order impugned dated 4.3.2008 passed by the learned CJM Hazaribagh was beyond his jurisdiction as he was lacking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall his own order.

4. The FIR was instituted on 13.12.2007 and thereafter the confiscation proceeding was initiated for confiscation of the seized truck and 100 bags of coal loaded thereon but the fact regarding the confiscation proceeding being initiated before the D.F.O. Ramgarh was communicated to the CJM after the order was passed on 3.3.2008 for release of the truck and 100 bags of coal and no revision was preferred by the competent authority of the State for setting aside the order.

5. Mr. R.R. Mishra, the learned G.P. II, fairly conceded the point of law as raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

6. In such circumstances, I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the learned CJM, Hazaribagh was not within his competence to recall his own order and the impugned order dated 4.3.2008 is barred by jurisdiction and it is set aside.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the modification in the impugned order dated 4.3.2008 that truck No. BR 18-6556 would be released in favour of the petitioner Md. Javed on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 7,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the CJM Hazaribagh in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No. 516 of 2007 corresponding to G.R No. 4568 of 2007 subject to the decision of the confiscation proceeding No. 2 of 2008 pending before the DFO Ramgarh. It is further directed to the petitioner to cooperate with the confiscation proceeding and to take appropriate steps on the date fixed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2008 Same Parties Md. Javed vs State of Jharkhand Same Subject Criminal Same Judge D.K. Sinha, J.

Criminal