The Orissa High Court has quashed an order of a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate that cancelled the interim release of a seized JCB excavator and directed its recovery from the person who had been granted custody earlier.
Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi held that the cancellation order was passed without notice to the affected party and amounted to an impermissible review of an earlier judicial order.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolves around ownership and possession of a JCB excavator machine. According to the petitioner, Batakrushna Dehury, he had purchased the machine from the second opposite party after paying ₹13 lakh and later allowed him to manage its operations under a separate arrangement.
Differences arose between the parties, leading to the registration of criminal proceedings. During investigation, the excavator was seized by the police.
The second opposite party sought release of the machine in his favour before the trial court, but his request was rejected. A revision petition challenging that rejection also failed.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied for interim custody of the vehicle. In August 2023, the Magistrate allowed the application and released the JCB to him subject to several conditions.
Later, another criminal case was registered based on allegations relating to documents connected with the transaction. During that investigation, the Investigating Officer moved the Magistrate seeking cancellation of the earlier release order.
On 2 January 2025, the Magistrate cancelled the interim custody granted to the petitioner and directed production of the vehicle before the police.
The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The High Court found serious procedural defects in the Magistrate’s order.
The Court noted that the petitioner was not issued any notice before the order cancelling custody was passed. It observed that the earlier release order had already been acted upon and the petitioner had taken possession of the vehicle.
Justice Panigrahi emphasized that any order adversely affecting a person's rights must be preceded by an opportunity of hearing.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed:
“No person can be inflicted with an adverse order affecting his rights without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing.”
The Court also found that there was no finding that the petitioner had violated any of the conditions imposed while granting interim custody of the excavator.
Another significant issue identified by the High Court was that the Magistrate had effectively revisited the merits of the earlier custody order by examining disputed questions relating to ownership and documents.
According to the Court, such an exercise amounted to reviewing a final judicial order, something that is generally prohibited under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The bench further pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the Magistrate’s approach. On the same day, one prayer of the Investigating Officer seeking transfer of possession was rejected, while another prayer resulted in cancellation of the petitioner’s custody, ultimately leading to the same outcome.
The Court described this approach as reflecting “non-application of mind” and arbitrariness.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the Orissa High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 2 January 2025.
The Court restored the earlier order dated 21 August 2023 under which the JCB excavator had been released in favour of the petitioner. It also directed the trial court to decide the pending protest petition in accordance with law after giving all parties an opportunity of hearing.
The High Court further directed the petitioner to continue complying with all conditions attached to the original release order while the proceedings remain pending.
Case Details
Case Title: Batakrushna Dehury v. State of Odisha & Another
Case Number: CRLMC No. 163 of 2025
Judge: Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi
Decision Date: 22 May 2026
