1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Dhurwa P.S. Case No.283 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned court below was not inclined to release the seized iron scrap in favour of the petitioner and also to quash and set aside the dismissal order dated 17.08.2023 passed in Cr. Revision No.381 of 2023 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in connection with the said order dated 21.06.2023.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner filed a petition for the release of iron angles which were seized in connection with Dhurwa P.S. Case No.283 of 2022 while the same were transported illegally, in connivance with the accused persons of the case. The petitioner claims the said iron angles on the basis of an agreement from Baliram Kumar. The learned trial court issued notice to Baliram Kumar. Baliram Kumar stated that he does not know the petitioner and stated that the petitioner is insisting Baliram Kumar to depose before the court that Baliram Kumar has sold the tower of Aircel Company to the petitioner, otherwise Baliram Kumar will be trapped in the case. Considering the aforesaid facts, the learned trial court rejected the prayer for release of the seized iron angle in favour of the petitioner. The learned revisional court considered that Baliram Kumar himself stated that he is not the owner of the property rather he said that the seized iron angles belong to Aircel Company. So, the question of the petitioner acquiring any ownership over the property by an agreement with Baliram Kumar, does not arise and it did not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned before it and dismissed the Criminal Revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs. State of Mysore reported in (1977) 4 SCC 358 wherein it was observed that the property seized by police ought not be retained in the custody of the court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. It is then submitted that the petitioner purchased the said iron angles from Baliram Kumar by way of an agreement and the petitioner has been granted the privileges of anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the signature of Baliram Kumar on the stamp paper for agreement-cum-sale is not in dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

5. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the materials in the record go to show that the property sought to be released by the petitioner, belong to Aircel Company. The alleged vendor of the petitioner, namely Baliram Kumar has categorically stated that he is not the owner of the property, claimed to have been purchased from him; by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have acquired any ownership over the property from the person who himself admits that he is not the owner of the property. So, under such circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned courts in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of the materials in favour of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the materials in the record go to show that the seized property belongs to Aircel Company. The said Aircel Company has not come forward for release of the seized articles rather a third person being the petitioner, is claiming release of the property on the basis of a document of sale from one Baliram Kumar; who himself admits that he is not the owner of the property. In view of such admission of Baliram Kumar that he is not the owner of the property concerned, certainly no ownership could have been acquired by the petitioner by virtue of any agreement for sale; even if for the sake of arguments, the same is considered to be a genuine one.

7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner is not the owner of the property sought to be released, neither any illegality has been committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in refusing to release the seized property in favour of the petitioner nor any illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in dismissing the Criminal Revision; warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.