Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 78 (RAJ)

Mahaveer Prasad v. Union of India

1999-01-20

G.L.GUPTA

body1999
JUDGMENT 1. -This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 13.11.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur whereby he upheld the order passed by the Magistrate. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 8.9.1998 Jeep No. RJ- 23 C-2736 was intercepted on Fatehpur-Churu Road by the custom officials. On search a sum of Rs. 15 Lacs was found in the hidden pocket of the Jeep. The Jeep was being driven by Usman. On the basis of the statement made by Usman a case under the Customs Act was registered. Mahavir who is the registered owner of the Jeep made an application under section 457 Cr.P.C. for the interim custody of the Jeep. This application was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 25.9.1998. The order has been upheld by the Sessions Judge. 3. Mr. Rathore contends that the petitioner is registered owner of the Jeep and if the Jeep is allowed to remain with the Customs Department, it will get damaged by wind, sun and rains. He states that his client is prepared to furnish security bonds undertaking to produce the Jeep as and when called upon by the Customs Department of the Court. He relies on the cases of Abhay Singh v. State of Rajasthan. 1991 (1) Crimes 727 & Ghanshyam Soni v. State, 1991 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 599 . 4. Mr. Nahar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union pf India contends that the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. are not attracted as the vehicle has not been seized by the police under section 102 Cr.P.C. Relying on the case of Inspector, Central Excise & Customs, Barmer v. Sukhdev Singh, 1998 RCC 78 he canvasses that the Jeep may not be delivered to the petitioner. 5. I have carefully considered the above arguments. It is not submitted by Mr. Nahar that the Customs Department has got proper arrangements for keeping the Jeep in safe condition. Mr. Nahar is not in a position to say as to what time is likely to he taken by the Customs Department in completing the proceedings. The Jeep cannot be allowed to remain lying unsafe for unlimited period. This Court in the case of Abhay Singh (supra) where thevehicle was used for carrying smuggled goods had directed the release on furnishing "Superdaginama". The Jeep cannot be allowed to remain lying unsafe for unlimited period. This Court in the case of Abhay Singh (supra) where thevehicle was used for carrying smuggled goods had directed the release on furnishing "Superdaginama". It may be that the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. do not apply to the property seized by the Customs Department but the powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. are of inherent nature being the highest Court of the State. Even in the case of Inspector, Central Excise (supra) relied on by Mr. Nahar, it has been observed that where it comes to the notice of this Court that the proceedings for confiscation of the seized conveyance have been unduly delayed the Court with a view to prevent the abuse of the process of law/Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice can always pass appropriate orders for the safe interim custody of the conveyance. 6. Moreover, in the instant case the smuggled goods was not found in the Jeep. The prosecution case is that the currency note worth Rs. 15 lacs were the consideration money of the smuggled gold. Under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, convenance used as a means of transport in the smuggling of any goods or in the carriage of any smuggled goods shall be liable to confiscation. At this stage, it cannot be said that the currency note found in the Jeep were the smuggled goods. 7. Taking all the facts & circumstances of the case I deem it proper to deliver the custody of the Jeep to the petitioner who is its registered owner subject to such conditions which may safeguard the interest of both the parties. 8. Consequently, it is directed that the Jeep No. RJ-23-C 2736 shall be delivered to the petitioner on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall furnish a Supardaginama in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and solvent surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur; (ii) that the petitioner shall produce the said Jeep during the enquiry or trial of the case or as and when called upon to do so by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur or any other Court; (iii) that the petitioner shall not make any alteration in the body of the Jeep. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur; (ii) that the petitioner shall produce the said Jeep during the enquiry or trial of the case or as and when called upon to do so by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur or any other Court; (iii) that the petitioner shall not make any alteration in the body of the Jeep. He will not change the colour of the Jeep and he shall keep it in the same condition as it is delivered to him. If any alteration is needed then he shall seek prior permission of the aforesaid Court; (iv) the petitioner shall produce the Jeep in the first week of every month before the custom officer concerned for his inspection; (v) the petitioner shall not transfer or otherwise dispose of the aforesaid Jeep till the matter is finally adjudicated; (vi) the Jeep shall not be used for repeating such similar offences in future. If any of the aforesaid condition is violated by the petitioner then it will be open for the learned Public Prosecutor or the Customs Department to make an application before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur to get back the aforesaid Jeep from the petitioner without any reference of this Court who shall decide the application after hearing all the concerned parties. 9. The petition is disposed of as indicated above.Petition disposed of. *******