Morung Express News
Dimapur | September 1
Eight trucks (oil tankers) which were impounded following the ACAUT fuel adulteration exposé have been released. The trucks were released on the evening of August 31 after an initial attempt by the police on August 30 to release the truck faced opposition from the public. The trucks were released by executing “zimma bond” of Rs. 2 lakh per vehicle.
The police maintained that it was executing a magisterial directive to release 8 trucks from Nagame Petrol Pump, Chumukedima, where the trucks were kept. There were a total of 11 trucks within the premises when the raid and subsequent sealing of the place occurred on June 27.
As regards the controversy surrounding the number of trucks, the police maintained that the court order to release the trucks was based on a “re-verification” of the original police seizure memo. The “re-verification” was conducted following the sealing of the place on June 27. On the day the place was sealed, during the quantification process 4 trucks out of the 11 were reportedly found filled.
The quantification was done manually, which called for a second verification, the police said. The “re-verification” was subsequently done on the orders of the court with an official from the Dimapur district administration as witness. As per the police, it was discovered during the “re-verification” that only 3 trucks were found filled. Based on the finding, a fresh seizure memo was prepared, which eventually landed up in court when the petition to release the “empty” trucks was filed.
While the first quantification was done in the presence of independent witnesses, it was not applied when the “re-verification” occurred.
Queried on the impact the release of the trucks would have on the ongoing investigation into the fuel adulteration exposé, one police official pointed to the condition mentioned in the magisterial order wherein the petitioner will be bound to produce the trucks when required by the police or called by the court.
It was further maintained that the SIT could not object to the release order as it was not aware of the petition for release. Normally, in such cases, the prosecution is notified to respond to raise objections, if any, but no such notice was received, it was added.
