Criminal Appeal No. 10/2017 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 13. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.865 of 2019 Sankarsan Sahu @ Sankarsana Sahoo ..…... Petitioner Mr. Devashis Panda, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha …… Opposite Party Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 20.11.2023 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. In this Criminal Revision, the Petitioner challenges the judgment dated 25.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in Criminal Appeal No.10/2017 of 2018-19
Legal Reasoning
confirming the order dated 21.07.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna in Criminal Misc. Case No.35 of 2018. The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. for release of the seized 6 (six) tons and 80 Kgs. of 2 Copper and Scraps in connection with Lanjigarh P.S. Case No.37 of 2013 corresponding to C.T. Case No.637 of 2013 was rejected. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, is that, based on the written report of one Soumya Ranjan Panigrahy, who was the Junior Security Officer in Vedanta Aluminum Ltd. situated at Lanjigarh on 01.09.2013 at 8.30 A.M., the I.I.C., Lanjigarh P.S. registered P.S. case No.37 of 2013, under Section 379/34 of the I.P.C. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that while the informant along with others were performing patrolling duty, they received information from their Security Guard Rashid Alli that some unknown miscreants had illegally entered into their SSNP Store, situated inside VAL premises, Lanjigarh, by cutting the barbed wire fence, in order to commit theft of their properties. Accordingly, the informant along with others went to the spot and found seven numbers of miscreants were engaged in the theft of copper cables. They chased to apprehend them, who fled along with the stolen copper cables approximately having weight of 140 Kgs. The approximate cost of the said stolen copper cables was about Rs.90,000/-. He also named the accused persons, who had committed the theft. During the course of investigation, 3 some copper wires were recovered from the back-yard of the house of accused Laxman Sahu. Based on the statements of the accused persons, the I.O. had also recovered 76 bags of copper scrap materials out of the total weight of 6080 Kgs. from the house of one Udhab Chandra Sahu. The Petitioner claiming himself to be the proprietor of M/s. Bharati Metal Traders and claimed ownership of the seized 6080 Kgs. of scrap copper. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that M/s. Bharati Metal Traders deals with brass and bell-metal utensils, iron, steel, aluminum, copper and scrap. The Petitioner is the owner of the seized 6080 Kgs of copper scrap which had purchased from M/s. Sai Enterprises, Junagarh and the same was stored in the adjoining yard of his brother who was an accused. In support of his claim of purchase, the Petitioner has filed some Tax Invoice receipts and Registration Certificate of M/s. Sai Enterprises, Juagarh. He further contended that the Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. on 12.11.2013 claiming interim release of the seized scrap and the learned court below called for a report from the I.I.C., Lanjigarh P.S vide D.R. No.1655 dated 26.11.2013. The I.I.C., Lanjigarh P.S. had 4 submitted the report stating therein that the stolen 140 Kgs of copper cables had been seized by him and given to the informant on zima. On subsequent raid of the premises of accused Udhab Chandra Sahu of Junagarh (brother of the Petitioner), 6080 Kgs of copper scrap in 76 bags each of 80 Kgs weight out of which 500 Kgs of copper wires and plates belonged to VAL were recovered and the balance 5580 Kgs might belong to accused Udhab Chandra Sahu, which had earlier been stolen. But the same was not reported.
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna had rejected the petition dated 12.11.2013 filed under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner vide order dated 05.12.2013. Thereafter, the Petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi vide Criminal Revision No.1 of 2014. Learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi vide order dated 15.04.2014 confirmed the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna. Thereafter, the Petitioner had approached this Court vide CRLMC No.2581 of 2014 which
Decision
was disposed of on 09.12.2014 with a direction to the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna to take effective steps to complete the trial and dispose of C.T. Case No.637 of 2013 as 5 expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. However, despite the direction of this Court vide order dated 09.12.2014 passed in CRLMC No.2581 of 2014 since the trial court could not complete the trial within the time stipulated, the Petitioner once again filed a petition under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. But the same was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 07.08.2015. 7. Thereafter, when the split-up trials ended vide judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed in C.T. Case No.637 of 2013 acquitting all the nine accused persons of the charge, the Petitioner further filed a petition under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. bearing C.M.C. No.35 of 2018 seeking release of the seized articles in his favour. However, learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna rejected the same vide order dated 21.07.2018 which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna vide judgment dated 25.09.2019 in Crl. Appeal No.10/17 of 2018- 19 as stated supra. 8. He further contends that from the police report submitted in course of inquiry, the Tax Invoice receipts and Registration Certificate of M/s. Sai Enterprises, Junagarh, it can be presumed that the Petitioner had lawful possession of 6 the seized copper scrap materials. It is also contended that the initial allegation of theft related to stolen copper cables of only 140 kgs. weight and the seized materials consisting of 6080 Kgs. of copper scrap of which according to the I.O. only 500 Kgs. belonged to VAL. Moreover, there is no other claimant to the seized materials except the Petitioner in this case after and before passing of the order of acquittal by the trial court. Hence, he submits that the prayer of the Petitioner may be allowed and the seized articles may be released in his favour. He also submitted that there was no claimant nor was there any report regarding the stolen property but the police has unnecessarily dragging the Petitioner in this case and nor allowing release of the scrap. 9. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner had not submitted a single scrap of paper in support of the ownership of the alleged seized articles. He further submits that the seized properties belong to Vedanta Aluminum Limited Lanjigarh and during investigation the VAL Authority has identified the seized copper wires, copper plates etc. He, therefore, submits that the prayer made by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 7 10. Having heard the rival contentions and upon perusal of materials on record, it is found that the Petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in this case though as many as nine persons including the Petitioner’s brother have been implicated in the case. All the accused persons have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that findings of the lower appellate court as well as the trial court that the Petitioner is not entitled to lawful possession of the seized articles are not applicable after conclusion of the trial when there is no other claimant to the seized articles. It is obvious that on completion of the trial direction was issued to return the seized articles to its owner and as on the said date no one except the Petitioner has claimed ownership thereof including the informant as well as the accused from whose land the same was seized. In such circumstances, there appears to be no hindrance in releasing the seized articles in favour of the Petitioner. 11. Considering the aforementioned submissions of the parties, the CRLREV is allowed. The judgment dated 25.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum- Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in Criminal 8 Appeal No.10/2017 of 2018-19 as well as the order dated 21.07.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna in Criminal Misc. Case No.35 of 2018 are set aside. The Petitioner is directed to approach the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna again by filing an application under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. along with a certified copy of this order for release of the said seized articles in his favour. In such event, learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, this CRLREV is disposed of. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 22-Nov-2023 18:32:57