Interim release order cancellation deemed unsustainable due to lack of notice and hearing, violating natural justice and statutory bar.
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has quashed an order by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamakhyanagar, which had cancelled the interim release of a JCB excavator to the petitioner, Batakrushna Dehury. The High Court, presided over by Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J., emphasized the principles of natural justice, stating that the cancellation without notice or hearing was unsustainable.
The case revolves around a dispute between Batakrushna Dehury, the petitioner, and the State of Odisha, along with an individual, the original owner of the JCB. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the excavator from the original owner, who later alleged forgery and sought to reclaim the machine through legal proceedings.
Originally, the petitioner was granted interim release of the JCB by the Magistrate in August 2023, following a thorough review of the case. However, in January 2025, the Investigating Officer filed for the cancellation of this release, leading to the impugned order without notifying the petitioner or giving him an opportunity to be heard.
The High Court's decision highlighted several legal infirmities in the Magistrate's order. It underscored the violation of the "audi alteram partem" rule, which mandates that no person should face an adverse order without being given a chance to present their case. This principle, deeply entrenched in Indian jurisprudence, was reinforced by the Supreme Court in previous rulings, including the cases of M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Gurdev Singh v. State of Bihar.
Moreover, the High Court pointed to the statutory bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which prohibits the alteration or review of a final order except for correcting clerical errors. The Magistrate's re-evaluation of the facts and documents, leading to a review of the prior final order, was deemed a breach of this provision.
The judgment also noted the inconsistencies in the Magistrate's orders, where contradictory decisions were made regarding the vehicle's custody on the same day. This reflected a lack of application of mind and procedural impropriety.
The court concluded by reinstating the original order granting interim custody to the petitioner and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the protest petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with the law. The High Court's decision reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring fairness in judicial proceedings.
Bottom line:-
Principles of natural justice and statutory bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Cancellation of interim release order of seized property without notice to the affected party and re-appreciation of facts already decided in a final order is unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 362, Section 457, Section 482, Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Batakrushna Dehury v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2912648
