Lenga Manjhi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - 2. from perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned magistrate, after hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that the seized money and fixed deposit certificates are not perishable items and there was no justification for the petitioner to keep such a huge amount in his house and thereby the learned magistrate rejected the prayer for release of the aforesaid cash amount as well as the fixed certificates. the petitioner is very much claiming the cash amount as well as the fixed deposit certificates on the ground that he is the owner of the same and it should be released in his favour. from annexure-5 to the revision application which is the report of the investigating officer submitted to the chief judicial magistrate, hazaribagh, it appears that the investigating officer has held that though the ownership of the cash amount as well as of the fixed deposits appears to be in favour of the petitioner but there is no justification for the petitioner to keep such a huge amount in his house.orderamareshwar sahay, j.1. this revision application has been filed against the order dated 15.12.03 whereby learned court below rejected the prayer of the petitioners to release the cash amounting to rs. 5.15.750/- and also two fixed deposits seized by the police, bearing no. s.d. a/68-734772 and s.d. a-72-443861 in connection with mandu (kuju) p.s. case no. 233 of 2003 which was registered against the lodha manjhi for offence under section 25(1-b), a, 26, 35 arms act.2. from perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned magistrate, after hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that the seized money and fixed deposit certificates are not perishable items and there was no justification for the petitioner to keep such a huge amount in his house and thereby the learned magistrate rejected the prayer for release of the aforesaid cash amount as well as the fixed certificates.3. learned counsel for the state who was directed to seek instruction and file counter affidavit, if any. pursuant thereto a counter affidavit has been filed duly sworn in by the officer-in-charge, kuju police station. the state has tried to support the impugned order stating that no valid paper was shown by the petitioner regarding the ownership of the seized articles nor the petitioner claimed to be the owner thereof in course of investigation. apparently the said stand taken by the state appears to be absolutely wrong. the petitioner is very much claiming the cash amount as well as the fixed deposit certificates on the ground that he is the owner of the same and it should be released in his favour. from annexure-5 to the revision application which is the report of the investigating officer submitted to the chief judicial magistrate, hazaribagh, it appears that the investigating officer has held that though the ownership of the cash amount as well as of the fixed deposits appears to be in favour of the petitioner but there is no justification for the petitioner to keep such a huge amount in his house. from the report of the investigating officer also it appears that the ownership of the petitioners regarding the cash amount and fixed deposit certificates was not disputed by the investigating officer.4. there is no other claimant also and the accused lodha manjhi has also sworn an affidavit to the effect that of the said seized cash money and the fixed deposit certificates belonged to the petitioner.5. in view of the fact and circumstances stated above i find that the learned magistrate was not right in refusing the release the aforesaid cash amount and the two fixed certificates in favour of the petitioners.6. accordingly, this application is allowed. the impugned order dated 15.12.03 passed by the court below is hereby set aside and it is directed that the seized cash amount of rs. 5,15,750/- and the two fixed deposit standing in the name of the petitioner bearing no. s.d. a/68-734772 and s.d. a/72-443861 be released in his favour on furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court below and on such reasonable condition which the trial court may direct.

Judgment:
ORDER

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 15.12.03 whereby learned Court below rejected the prayer of the petitioners to release the cash amounting to Rs. 5.15.750/- and also two fixed deposits seized by the police, bearing No. S.D. A/68-734772 and S.D. A-72-443861 in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 233 of 2003 which was registered against the Lodha Manjhi for offence under Section 25(1-B), A, 26, 35 Arms Act.

2. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that the seized money and fixed deposit certificates are not perishable items and there was no justification for the petitioner to keep such a huge amount in his house and thereby the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for release of the aforesaid cash amount as well as the fixed certificates.

3. Learned counsel for the State who was directed to seek instruction and file counter affidavit, if any. Pursuant thereto a counter affidavit has been filed duly sworn in by the Officer-In-charge, Kuju Police Station. The State has tried to support the impugned order stating that no valid paper was shown by the petitioner regarding the ownership of the seized articles nor the petitioner claimed to be the owner thereof in course of investigation. Apparently the said stand taken by the State appears to be absolutely wrong. The petitioner is very much claiming the cash amount as well as the fixed deposit certificates on the ground that he is the owner of the same and it should be released in his favour. From Annexure-5 to the revision application which is the report of the Investigating Officer submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, it appears that the Investigating Officer has held that though the ownership of the cash amount as well as of the fixed deposits appears to be in favour of the petitioner but there is no justification for the petitioner to keep such a huge amount in his house. From the report of the Investigating Officer also it appears that the ownership of the petitioners regarding the cash amount and fixed deposit certificates was not disputed by the Investigating Officer.

4. There is no other claimant also and the accused Lodha Manjhi has also sworn an affidavit to the effect that of the said seized cash money and the fixed deposit certificates belonged to the petitioner.

5. In view of the fact and circumstances stated above I find that the learned Magistrate was not right in refusing the release the aforesaid cash amount and the two fixed certificates in favour of the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.03 passed by the Court below is hereby set aside and it is directed that the seized cash amount of Rs. 5,15,750/- and the two fixed deposit standing in the name of the petitioner bearing No. S.D. A/68-734772 and S.D. A/72-443861 be released in his favour on furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court below and on such reasonable condition which the Trial Court may direct.