Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010155882025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./275/2025 SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED CIN- U27100WB2002PLC09433, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHYAM TOWER, PREMISES NO.03-319, DH-6/11 ACTION AREA-1D, STREET NO.319, NEW TOWN, KOLKATA, PIN - 700156, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED MR. PRASANTA BHANDARY, S/O- BABLU BHANDARY, R/O- C-28,1/5 COLONY, ANDAL, P.O.- ANDAL, P.S.- ANDAL, DIST.- BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL, PIN - 713321. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:ANUPAM NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED. PAN NO. AAICA4965B GSTIN NO.18AAICA4965B1ZP REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NAMELY ANUPAM SHARMA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BHASKAR NAGAR BYE LANE NO.2 ZOO NARENGI ROAD BEHIND B S PUBLICATIONS GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN -781012 3:MR. BIDYUT SARKAR SITE IN-CHARGE MUSHALPUR SITE OF ANUPAM NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED S/O- BAIDYANATH SARKAR Page No.# 2/6 R/O- WARD NO.1 KRISHNA NAGAR BILASHIPARA TOWN P.S.- BILASHIPARA DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN - 783348 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G Z AHMED, MR. H SINGH,MR S A REEYAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 23.10.2025 Heard Mr. G.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent No.1. None appears for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, despite service of notice. 2. This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 02.05.2025 and 05.05.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, in Nalbari P.S. Case No.97/2025 under Sections 316(3)/318(4) of the BNS, whereby an application for zimma filed by the respondent No.3 was allowed and the one filed by the present petitioner was rejected. 3. The facts of the case may be briefly sated as follows- A written Ejahar was lodged on 24.03.2015 by the respondent no. 3 herein, namely Mr. Bidyut Sarkar, who is the Site In-charge of the Mushalpur Site of the respondent no. 2 company, namely, Anupam Nirman Private Limited Page No.# 3/6 as the informant before the Officer In-Charge, Nalbari Police Station, stating that the respondent no. 2 company had bought from the petitioner company a shipment of 32 (Thirty Two) Tons of TMT Bars/Steel Rods for Rs. 19,44,445.10/- only for some ongoing construction works of the respondent no. 2 company at Mushalpur, Baksa and further stating that the said TMT Bars was brought by the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-39B/4945. It is further stated in the said Ejahar dated 24.03.2025 that upon reaching Tihu Highway on 22.03.2025 at around 3:30 p.m., the said vehicle was weighed at a Weigh Bridge and 32 (Thirty Two) Tons of TMT Bars were found and thereafter at around 5 p.m. in the evening, the driver started towards Mushalpur for unloading the TMT Bars. 4. It is further stated in the said Ejahar dated 24.03.2025 that the informant came to know that the said vehicle got stuck in a drain at Khatabari, Nalbari Town and as such, lifting equipments were sent by the respondent no. 2 company, whereby the said vehicle was lifted and sent towards Mushalpur. However, it is alleged by the informant in the said Ejahar dated 24.03.2025 that he became suspicious as to how the said vehicle got stuck at Nalbari Town instead of going towards Mushalpur and as such, he called the driver of the vehicle and asked him to bring the said vehicle at Tihu Weigh Bridge, whereupon after re-weighing 3 (Three) Tons of TMT Bars/Steel Rods were found to be short. It is further alleged in the Ejahar dated 24.03.2025 that upon questioning, the driver stated that while he was bringing the rods from West Bengal, after 40-50 kilometers, the owner of the vehicle, namely Rahul Mishra, unloaded 3(three) Tons of Steel Rods/TMT Bars and placed sand bags weighing 3 (Three) Tons in the secret chamber of the said vehicle and after weighing at Page No.# 4/6 Tihu Weigh Bridge, the said sand bags were thrown in the road. As such, vide the aforesaid written Ejahar dated 24.03.2025, the informant requested that the matter be investigated by the police and the stolen Steel Rods/TMT Bars be recovered and further necessary action be taken against the owner and driver of the vehicle. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid written Ejahar dated 24.03.2025, Nalbari P.S. Case No. 97/2025 dated 24.03.2025 under Sections 316(3)/318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came to be registered by the Officer In-Charge of Nalbari Police Station. 6. The authorized representative of the petitioner company, Mr. Prasanta Bhandary, as the lawful attorney of Mr. Rahul Kumar Mishra, the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-39B/4945 filed a Zimma Petition on 10.04.2025 before the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari (hereinafter referred to as the Learned Trial Court for the sake of brevity and convenience), which was registered and numbered as Petition No. 240/2025 dated 10.04.2025, with a prayer for custody/zimma of the seized 29 (Twenty Nine) Tons of TMT Bars/Steel Bars of Shyam Steel Industries Limited. 7. In course of hearing of the aforesaid zimma application, the informant upon receipt of notice appeared and submitted that the custody of the seized TMT Bars should be given to the informant company, as the informant company has purchased the same by making payment to the concerned vendor and also filed zimma application through the learned Addl. P.P. before the learned Trial Court being Petition No.306/2025 dated 29.04.2025, seeking zimma of the said articles. It was the stand of the zimma petitioner (Transporter) before the learned Trial Court that the petitioner had dispatched another consignment of Page No.# 5/6 32 Tons of TMT Bars for supply of the same to the informant and that written intimation of the same was already given to the informant. But, despite opportunity being given, the zimma petitioner’s counsel apprised the learned Trial Court that he could not obtain the documents relating to such dispatch of 32 Tons of TMT Bars and further, conceded that in the absence such document, the petitioner does not have any objection if the seized 29 Tons of TMT Bars/Steel rods are released to the custody of the informant. Accordingly, the zimma petition No.240/2025 filed by the zimma petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Court and subsequently, a zimma petition being petition No.325/2025 dated 02.05.2025 was filed by the informant. After receipt of report from the I.O. that the informant is the owner of the said seized articles, directed the I.O. to release the same to the custody of the informant upon execution of a bond of Rs.19,53,600/- by imposing usual conditions. 8. The aforesaid orders are under challenge in the instant petition. 9. As is apparent from the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the impugned orders, the custody of the seized articles were granted to the informant/respondent No.3 upon concession of the learned counsel for the zimma petitioner. Moreover, as rightly observed by the learned Court below, the informant had already made payment of the price for the aforesaid seized TMT Bars to the supplier, namely Shyam Steel Industries Limited, i.e., the present revision petitioner and therefore, it appeared that the petitioner of zimma petition No.240/2025 did not have any ownership claim over the seized TMT Bars. 10. Therefore, what transpires from the above is that the supplier, namely Page No.# 6/6 Shyam Steel Industries Limited (present petitioner) supplied 29 Tons of TMT Bars to the informant company, i.e. the respondent No.2 represented by the respondent No.3/informant through the zimma petitioner, who was the transporter of the same and payment for the same has already been made to the supplier by the purchaser. Therefore, the present petitioner does not have any iota of right to claim custody of the aforesaid seized articles. The fact that subsequently the supplier, through the present petitioner as transporters had supplied 32 Tons of TMT Bars to the informant company, which even if true, is an altogether different transaction and has nothing to do with the question of custody of the seized articles which must be with the person best entitled, i.e., the owner. It is always open for the petitioner to claim the sale price for the aforesaid 32 Tons of TMT Bars claimed to have been supplied to the informant company or the return of the goods, depending of course, on any agreement between the parties and as per the laws of the land. But, such exercise has nothing to do with the earlier transaction or the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 11. For the aforesaid given reasons, I find the instant petition to be wholly devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant