Sankar Lal Sahoo vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that the seized iron scrap materials should be released to the petitioner on furnishing adequate security. The Court reasoned that Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. enables the interim release of seized property pending inquiry or trial. Citing the object of this provision, as emphasized by the Apex Court and the High Court, the Court noted that keeping seized property exposed to the elements during trial benefits neither party. Considering the valuation of the property at Rs.85,000/- (as per the e-Way Bill) and the fact that no other claimant had come forward, the Court found no impediment to directing interim release. The Court directed the release of the M.S. Scrap materials weighing 4.250 MT in favour of the petitioner upon furnishing property security of Rs.85,000/-. The CRLREV was allowed.

Facts

The petitioner, a registered dealer of scrap materials with a GST number, filed a petition challenging an order dated 23.10.2019 by the J.M.F.C.(Rural), Rourkela. The order refused the petitioner's prayer for the release of iron scrap materials weighing 4.250 MT. These materials were seized by the police in Brahmanitarang P.S. case No.159 of 2019, registered under Sections 379/411/413/120-B of the IPC. The police found the materials being transported without supporting documents. The petitioner claimed to be the bona fide owner and stated the property was transported to ARUN STEEL Pvt. Ltd. via tax invoice No.20 dated 21.06.2019, providing his registration certificate and e-Way Bill as proof. The lower court refused release, citing lack of documentation for business authentication and purchase.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized iron scrap materials should be released to the petitioner pending inquiry or trial under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is the bona fide owner of the seized M.S. Scrap materials, being a registered dealer with a GST number. He asserted that the property was being transported to ARUN STEEL Pvt. Ltd. with an authenticated tax invoice (No.20 dated 21.06.2019) and an e-Way Bill. He argued that the police wrongly seized the materials despite the production of valid documents. He relied on his Registration Certificate and the e-Way Bill (Annexure-3) as evidence. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. The lower court's reasoning, as reflected in the impugned order, was that the petitioner failed to produce documents satisfying his authentication to conduct the scrap business and documents towards the purchase of the property.