Point of Law: At stage of investigation it cannot be ascertained if goods are stolen goods or if vehicle was seized with allegation of evasion of taxes and 120B is added with allegation of criminal conspiracy.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Assam.

2. The petitioner Rajhansh Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. represented by Attorney Holder Sri Mamraj Pareek has filed an application u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short) challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bokajan Karbi Anglong in connection with Borpathar P.S. Case No. 43/2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 328/2022 registered u/s 120B/420/406/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). Through the impugned order, the petition No. 85/2023 filed by the petitioner seeking zimma of Panmasala, Shikhar and Zarda lying inside the 10 wheeler truck bearing registration No. UP-16-HT-8952 was rejected by the learned court. On 01.03.2023 the petitioner filed this petition No. 85/2023 seeking zimma of the articles loaded on the 10 wheeler truck bearing registration No. UP-16-HT-8952, which was however rejected.

3. It is submitted that the Rajhansh Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. is an agency engaged in the business of transportation of goods from one state to another. On 29.12.2022 at about 5 AM during a random checking exercise at Khakrajan, the police officials of Borpathar P.S. arrested the driver of the vehicle along with the handyman and seized the 10 wheeler truck mentioned above. Both the driver and handyman were forwarded to custody as they were unable to produce the proper documents relating to goods carried by them which led the police to speculate that the goods were stolen goods. An FIR was registered and numbered as Borpathar P.S. Case No. 43/2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 328/2022 u/s 120B/420/406/379/34 IPC wherein it was alleged that 290 bags of medium sized Shikhar, 58 bags of small sized Shikhar, 60 bags of Tulsi Jarda SSI and 10 bags of Tulsi Jarda SSI small size, were recovered. The goods were valued at Rs. 1.2 crores. On 01.03.2023, the accused-persons were enlarged on bail after the statutory period of 60 days was over, and on the failure of the Investigating Officer (IO for short) to submit charge-sheet. The petitioner being the Power of Attorney Holder of the owner i.e. Rajhansh Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. applied for zimma of the seized articles loaded in the afore-mentioned truck.

4. The order of rejection is impugned on the ground that the learned Magistrate considered the objection raised by the IO, and observing that the detention of the vehicle for a prolonged period of time may not be feasible, passed an order allowing zimma of the truck, but the zimma of the articles loaded on the truck was not allowed. The police authorities during search learnt that the goods inside the truck and the documentation relating to the goods are not in consonance but the police ignored the fact that it is a genuine mistake on the part of the transportation agency. It is submitted that huge consignment of goods are released in bulk from the factories and sometimes the truck drivers and handyman belonging to such transportation agencies defaulted in obtaining the necessary documentation from the parent place of pick-up. In the instant case the driver and the handyman committed a mistake and brought the invoice of other related papers relating to the consignment which led to the seizure of the truck. The relevant invoice and E-way bills are submitted along with the petition marked as Annexure-8 which will substantiate the fact that the goods were carried legally and they were genuine documents to support the transportation of the goods which are perishable goods. The denial of custody of the goods shall amount to loss of business to both the seller and buyer. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 29.11.2022 in connection with CRM-M-38352-2014 in the case of Deepak Kumar vs.