Patna High Court - Orders
The Sate Of Bihar Through ... vs Smt. Alka Gorila & Anr on 25 June, 2012
Author: Anjana Prakash
Bench: Anjana Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.7675 of 2012
======================================================
1. The Sate of Bihar through Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Gaya
2. Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Gaya, Arun Kr. Sinha, S/O Sri C. B.
P. Sinha, R/O Moh-Choti Mirzapur, P.S.-Karim Bazar, Dist-Munger
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Smt. Alka Govila W/O Padam Kumar Govila &
2. Paddam Kumar Govila, S/O Ravi Dutta Govila, R/O 14/468 (1st Floor),
Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-10
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
ORAL ORDER
4/ 25-06-2012Learned counsel for the Petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the name of Opposite Party No.1.
Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioners be kept on record.
The State has moved this Court for quashing the order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, III, Gaya, in Cr. Revision No. 42 of 2011/47 of 2011 by which he has allowed the release of Tanker bearing registration no. MP- 06HC-0130 on furnishing surety bond of Rs.12 lacs seized in connection with Excise Case No.3 of 2011.
The Petitioners' prime objection along with other objections is that tanker has been released to a power of attorney 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7675 of 2012 (4) dt.25-06-2012 2/2 holder.
On the other hand, counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Proprietor of the firm is not an accused in the case and the Opposite Party No.2, the Power of Attorney Holder happens to be the husband of the Opposite Party No.1, and, therefore, the release of the tanker in such circumstances even on Power of Attorney was perfectly justified.
I am inclined to accept the submission raised on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
Finding no merit in the application, the same is dismissed.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the seizure which may be a subject matter of confiscation proceeding.
Let this order be communicated to the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd, Gaya, in connection with Cr. Revision No.42 of 2011/47 of 2011 through FAX at the cost of the Opposite Parties.
(Anjana Prakash, J) JA/-