Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 211 (GUJ)

Ahmedbhai Rasulbhai Shaikh v. STATE

2001-03-21

S.K.KESHOTE

body2001
S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) I am not marking the attendance of Mr. Samir Dave, the learned APP even though he is present, I am not hearing him also at this stage of preliminary hearing of the matter, though advance copy of the petition is given to the State of Gujarat. Merely on the ground that the petitioner has given advance copy of the petition for the State of gujarat, it does not acquire any right to be heard at the preliminary hearing stage. The right of hearing accrues to the State of Gujarat only after the matter is admitted or preadmission notice is given or by filing caveat prayer in the matter if under the Rules it is permissible. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner claiming himself to be a registered owner of Armada Jeep filed an application under Sec. 451 of the Criminal Procedure code in Court of Judicial Magistrate concerned for release of the vehicle aforesaid in his favour. This vehicle is a muddamal in the Criminal Complaint (FIR No. 31/2000) registered at Meghraj Police Station, Taluka - Modasa, District Sabarkantha in the prohibition case under Secs. 66 (B), 65 (A), 81, 1l (C) (Kh) of the Bombay Prohibition Act this application came to be rejected by the third Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa, under the order dated 30th September, 2000. Against this order the petitioner preferred a revision Application in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at himatnagar and the same came, to be dismissed by the additional Sessions Judge, sabarkantha at Himatnagar on 15th November, 2000. Hence, this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Courts below have committed Serious error of jurisdiction in declining to give custody of the vehicle to the petitioner who is a registered owner thereof. Carrying this contention further, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in the matter of releasing of the vehicle, which is muddamal in the Criminal Case, the Courts have to consider firstly as to who is the person eligible to keep the possession and secondly that once this vehicle is released, its production can easily be procured or not. Carrying this contention further, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in the matter of releasing of the vehicle, which is muddamal in the Criminal Case, the Courts have to consider firstly as to who is the person eligible to keep the possession and secondly that once this vehicle is released, its production can easily be procured or not. The second contention raised is that the Courts have not considered an important aspect in case, that in case the vehicle is allowed to continue at the Police Station till the criminal case is finally decided, it will be reduced to scrap value. In his submission, keeping the vehicle in open place pending the trial of the criminal case is not desirable. Lastly, it is contended that the jeep was taken by the driver for taking his family members for Darshan of Ambaji. The Jeep in used for carrying liquor without his consent or knowledge by the driver. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the criminal case, the petitioner is neither named as accused nor it is the case of the respondents that he was the person responsible for the commission of offence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions. (1) Assistant Forest Conservator and Ors. vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale, [1998 (1) gcd 746 (SC)] (2) Dasharathlal Gupta vs. The State of Maharashtra, [crlr (Mah) 1980 p. 534] (3) Abhay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, [1991 (1) Crimes (Raj) p. 727] (4) Rahim Khan vs. Union of India and Ors. , [1991 (1) (Crime) (Raj) p. 611] ( 4 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner before the Judicial magistrate First Class is marked as Exhibit 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the translated copy of this application. This application is purported to be filed under Sec. 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application filed by the petitioner before the Judicial magistrate First Class is marked as Exhibit 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the translated copy of this application. This application is purported to be filed under Sec. 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Briefly stated the contents of the application are as follows; (i) the applicant is letting Armada Jeep of his ownership bearing Registration No. GJ-7-R-2521 on hire; (ii) the Jeep has been seized by Meghraj police Station for an offence under the Prohibition Act; (iii) the applicant is not aware about the commission of this offence and as the same is devoid of any consent on his part, his vehicle has wrongly been detained by the Police, (iv) there is no other means of livelihood except this Jeep for the applicant and if the Jeep is allowed to be kept at Police station for a long period, his family members are likely to fall prey of starvation; (v) the vehicle is purchased by way of taking loan from the Bank and, hence, if the same is allowed to be kept at Police Station, he will not be able to pay installments; (vi) various spare parts, body tyres etc. of the Jeep are also likely to be damaged and spoiled if the jeep is allowed to be kept at the Police Station in such immobilized state and the Jeep shall be rendered useless permanently owing to which unbearable economic loss is likely to be accrued to the applicant; (vii) he is a permanent resident of village Balashinor and, therefore, he is not likely to escape or flee away and he does possess movable and immovable properties at Balashinor; and (viii) he undertakes to abide and strictly comply with whatever terms and conditions that may be imposed upon by the Court. ( 5 ) FROM the order of the learned trial Judge, I find that the accused in the prohibition case has passed a pursis stating that the muddamal jeep be handed over to the applicant. In the pursis what the learned Judge has found therein and which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also in this Court that, the accused has not stated himself to be the driver of the applicant. In the pursis what the learned Judge has found therein and which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also in this Court that, the accused has not stated himself to be the driver of the applicant. The learned trial Judge is correct in his approach that the relationship of owner and driver does not bear out between the applicant and the accused. The learned Trial Court is also correct in his approach that the applicant has not clarified how the Jeep came in the custody of the accused. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence i. e. Registration Certificate, has accepted that the applicant is the registered owner of the Jeep. The learned Trial Court has observed that the applicant failed to establish that how the Jeep with liquor bottles therein came to be in possession of the accused. The learned Trial Court has also noticed an important fact that the applicant at one hand stated that the Jeep is falsely involved in the case and later on, in the application, he stated that the offence is devoid of any consent on his part. So, the petitioner-applicant is blowing hot and cold. In the first breath, he denies the commission of the offence and in the second breath, he admits the commission of the offence without his consent. The learned Trial Court is perfectly justified in his approach not releasing the vehicle involved in the offence under the Prohibition Act. Offence under the Prohibition Act is to be considered seriously in a State Where there is total prohibition. The learned Trial Court has observed that when Muddamal of high value and in big volume is found in the jeep in such a situation, if the vehicle used in transportation thereof is easily released, then there is all possibility of encouragement of such activities. What I find from record that it was not the case of the applicant before the Courts below that the alleged driver has taken the jeep with the permission of the applicant for his personal use for taking his family members to Ambaji for Darshan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly observed that first time before him this plea has been raised that the applicant given the Jeep to the alleged driver to take his family to Ambaji. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly observed that first time before him this plea has been raised that the applicant given the Jeep to the alleged driver to take his family to Ambaji. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct to observe that the applicant has not stated in his application that the accused-driver had taken the Jeep on 7th September, 2000 informing him that he has to take his family members to Ambaji for performing Badha. I have gone through the contents of the application and I find therefrom that it is not the case of the applicant therein as what ground is made before the Revision Court for the first time and also argued before this Court that the alleged driver of the vehicle has taken the Jeep with the consent of the applicant for his own use i. e. to take his family members for Darshan to ambaji. In the Revision Application, the revisionist cannot be permitted to raise new ground and more so, when it pertains to the question of fact. From the facts of the case, I find that this contention should have been raised by the petitioner not first time in revisional Court but in the application itself so that, the decisions on which reliance has been placed and pressed into service could have been examined with respect to the grounds and facts stated therein. Otherwise also, it is a matter of fact and it has to be pleaded and established by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The learned additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that no evidence is produced before him to show that the Jeep was handed over by the applicant to the driver to take laters family members to Ambaji. Here, in this case, the applicant has not filed an affidavit of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate or before the Revisional Court in support of the contentions raised by him. The petitioner is highly interested person in the matter and he can say anything to take benefit. To prove a question of the fact, he has to produce satisfactory and cogent evidence, which is not done by the applicant in this case. To prove this fact, the most important evidence was the statement of the accused and that he has not produced. To prove a question of the fact, he has to produce satisfactory and cogent evidence, which is not done by the applicant in this case. To prove this fact, the most important evidence was the statement of the accused and that he has not produced. Not he produced any other material to prove and establish that the Jeep was given by him to the driver for the purpose to take his family members for darshan to Ambaji. Much emphasise has been led by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court on the fact that the owner of the vehicle is not named as the accused in the criminal case. It may be true that at this stage, the applicant may not be accused in the criminal Case, but in case in the investigation, if something comes against him i. e. with connivance of the applicant, this foreign liquor has been carried in the Jeep or he is abettor of the offence or with his connivance, commission of the offence has taken place, he can be made accused at later point of time. It is not in dispute that matter is pending at investigation stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner though argued the matter OH merits to show that the applicant has nothing to do with this offence, but at interlocutory state the matter is before this Court and it is not desirable to give any finding on the question whether the petitioner is involved in the offence or not. If it is done may cause prejudice to applicant. We are concerned only with the question at this stage whether on the facts of the case, vehicle is to be released or not in favour of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT is unfortunate in the State, where there is a total prohibition, that the officers of the Police as well as Prohibition Department are not honest to their duties which they owe to the people. Both in the case, where the prohibition offence is registered or bootlegger is detained under PAS A, I am constrained to observe, on the basis of my experience in the court which I gamed by dealing with such matters, that the Officers of both these two departments do hot act fairly, impartially and honestly. Both in the case, where the prohibition offence is registered or bootlegger is detained under PAS A, I am constrained to observe, on the basis of my experience in the court which I gamed by dealing with such matters, that the Officers of both these two departments do hot act fairly, impartially and honestly. If these Officers act fairly, impartially, honestly and without being influenced by any consideration certainly, there may not be any difficulty in strict enforcement of the Prohibition Law in the State. It is said that through out the State both country liquor and Indian Foreign made foreign liquor are easily available and that is also stated to be the case with bear. It may be correct and it seems to be correct, if we go by the facts of the case everyday coming up before this court. Huge quantity of both country liquor and IFML is infiltrated in the State by the persons who are involved in this lucrative occupation/business/trade though illegal from the Boarder States. It is also said that the Police and Prohibition Officers are also involved in this lucrative occupation/business/trade with the persons who are doing this in the State where there is total prohibition. In such matters, whether it is a prohibition case or PASA matter, the drivers of the vehicles are only being booked. In variably, the defence is taken by the owner of the vehicle involved in offence of this nature to blame the driver in order to escape himself from the liabilily. In few cases, there may be the possibility of misuse of the vehicles by an unscrupulous driver but it is difficult to believe it to be true in all the cases. I have seen while dealing with the PASA matters of the bootlegger that seldom, the owners of the vehicles used for carrying liquor are booked. Huge quantity of liquor is carried in the vehicles in the State and it is difficult to believe what to say to accept that the owners in aft the cases are innocent. It is different matter the owners of the vehicles are favoured at the hands of the Police and Prohibition Officers. Those persons who are capable Of managing things in their favour by using money or other powers import country liquor and IFML worth of crorers of rupees in the State. It is different matter the owners of the vehicles are favoured at the hands of the Police and Prohibition Officers. Those persons who are capable Of managing things in their favour by using money or other powers import country liquor and IFML worth of crorers of rupees in the State. They are making huge profits, though it is different matter that in the State the registration of the cases are only against the carriers (drivers of the vehicles ). It is difficult to believe that the Officers of the State concerned with the enforcement of the prohibition policy would not have awarded of this hard and real fact. These officers seem to be not interested to stop this liquor business in the State. When it is lucrative occupation/business/trade for the persons involved therein, certainly, it may benefit to the officers also who are responsible for enforcement of the Act. Rampant Corruption in the country amongst officers of the government is stated to be there. In the State where there is a total prohibition, liquor business alone may be a good source of income for the Officers. Unless there is an active connivance of the Police and Prohibition Officers with the persons involved in this lucrative occupation/business/trade infiltration of country liquor or the IFML in the State from the border States is very difficult. This is possible only with the helping hands of these Officers. If it is correct then, certainly these helping hands are to be greased by the persons who are involved in this lucrative occupation/business/trade. Prima facie, it is difficult to believe, at this interlocutory stage, that the story with which the petitioner has come up for release of vehicle is correct. The petitioner is an highly interested person and can conveniently put such a story. Looking to the fact that the vehicle admittedly was meant for hire and the quantity of the liquor seized therefrom, it is a matter of investigation and it is always open to the Investigating Officer, if material is there, to book the petitioner for commission of prohibition offence. The petitioner may be the registered owner of vehicle which does not mean that the vehicle is to be released in his favour. The petitioner may be the registered owner of vehicle which does not mean that the vehicle is to be released in his favour. It is not correct to contend that the Courts below while dealing with the application of the registered owner of the vehicle for release thereof involved in the offence needs not to consider whether he is entitled to lawful possession of the vehicle or not. It is also not correct that the Court at this stage needs not to consider who is the person to whom the delivery of the vehicle to be given. It is the discretion of the Judicial magistrate and he can decline the release of the vehicle in a given case in favour of the applicant. In the facts of this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality in not exercising his discretion in favour of the applicant. The applicant may be the registered owner, it is not the law that the Courts are bound to release the vehicle in his favour which is involved in a prohibition offence. It is always open to the Court below to decline the release of the vehicle in the given case even in favour of the registered owner. I am constrained to observe that a liberal approach of the Court in the matter of release of the vehicle involved in the prohibition offence may be one of the cause of encouragement of this lucrative liquor business/trade in the State. On release there are also possibilities that the vehicle may be used for the transport of the liquor in the State. To curb this activity in the State where there is total prohibition and keeping in view the rampant corruption amongst the officers of the State which is openly said by the people strict view needs to be taken by the Court while dealing with the application filed by the registered owner for release of the vehicle involved in the prohibition offence. ( 7 ) IN the case in hand, I find from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions judge that antecedents of the applicant are not good. The learned Additional Sessions judge, after considering the police papers and record, has observed that the applicant used to indulge into anti-social activity in collusion with the driver. ( 7 ) IN the case in hand, I find from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions judge that antecedents of the applicant are not good. The learned Additional Sessions judge, after considering the police papers and record, has observed that the applicant used to indulge into anti-social activity in collusion with the driver. The learned Additional sessions Judge was correct in his approach that in the discretionary order of the learned judicial Magistrate, there is little scope of interference by the Revisional Court. Where the revisional Court itself has very limited powers of judicial review in such matters, how far it is correct to contend on behalf of the applicant and to expect a much wide power of this court under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It is not the case where the order passed by the judicial Magistrate is perverse or passed without considering material or evidence produced on record. Under Art. 227 of the Constitution, this Court does not have powers of the Appellate or Revisional Court. It is not permissible to this Court to reappreciate the evidence under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Interference under Art. 227 of the constitution is called for only in exceptional cases. Though it is a different matter the litigants consider this Court as a Court of appeal and/or Revision under Art. 227 of the constitution. ( 8 ) NOW, two other points raised are to be considered. First is, that the Jeep is only source of livelihood of the petitioner and his family members and in case, it is not released, the family members of the petitioner are likely to fall prey to starvation. Second is that the Jeep has been purchased by way of taking loan from the Bank under the Hire purchase Agreement and if it is allowed to be kept at Police Station, the petitioner will not be able to pay the installments. Another ground raised is that if the vehicle is kept in the police Station, it will become useless and will remain of scrap value. ( 9 ) FROM the list of events, I find that the petitioner has taken loan for the purchase of this vehicle from Balashinor Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited and it is under the Hire purchase Agreement of that Bank. ( 9 ) FROM the list of events, I find that the petitioner has taken loan for the purchase of this vehicle from Balashinor Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited and it is under the Hire purchase Agreement of that Bank. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner in fact is only an ostensible owner and real owner of the vehicle is the bank. 1 am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle is purchased on loan and in the registration certificate hire Purchase Agreement would have been mentioned. The status of the petitioner may be of an ostensible owner of the vehicle so long as the loan is not fully paid to the Bank. But, here, the Bank has not come up with the application for release of the vehicle. In case where vehicle is allowed to be kept at police station during the pendency of the criminal case with the passage of time, the vehicle will become useless and have scrap value and it will certainly be a great loss to the bank. Banks money is the money of the people and in case, vehicle involved in the offence is kept in police custody then definitely, the petitioner cannot make the payment of installments and by passage of time, vehicle will be of no value. Consequence thereof, loss of bank money and it is loss to the public. In such matters, the subordinate Courts, when the application is filed, by the registered owner, have to give notice thereof to the financial institution from which the loan is taken. I have seen that registered owners are taking the possession of the vehicle involved in the criminal case from the Courts though, they are defaulters in payment of the installments of the loan. This vehicle otherwise would have been kept by the financial institution for default in payment of installments of loan amount. The financial institutions may have their own difficulties in recovering the loan installments. The Courts are to take care thereof while considering the application of the registered owner for release of the vehicle. All endeavour is to be made and to see that financial institutions can recover the loan installments and invariably orders are to be passed after hearing the financial institutions. The Courts are to take care thereof while considering the application of the registered owner for release of the vehicle. All endeavour is to be made and to see that financial institutions can recover the loan installments and invariably orders are to be passed after hearing the financial institutions. Even, if it is taken that the Jeep is only concern of the livelihood of the petitioner but first charge on income made therefrom is of the bank from which loan has been taken, to the extent of amount of the installments. It is the case of the petitioner that the full amount of loan has not been paid. When the petitioner admittedly is only an ostensible owner of the vehicle in this case, how far it is justified for him to file this application and how the same is maintainable only on his behalf. There may be a joint application of the petitioner and the bank or an application of registered owner in which he has impleaded the bank as the respondents. This is not the case here. In the facts of the case, these two contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have no substance whatsoever. I find substance in this contention that to keep the jeep in open place is not desirable. Where the Jeep is not released by the Court during the trial, it is to be kept at police Station till the case is finally decided. I am satisfied that it will result in reducing zero value of the vehicle. But, it is difficult to accept that only on this ground the vehicle has to be released in favour of the petitioenr. It is the only question of the protection of the vehicle from decaying and rusting as well as loss of the spare parts etc. If the vehicle remains stationary for a long period certainly, tubes and tyres thereof will get totally destroyed and the same cost heavily. In such matter and more particularly where, the court declines to release the vehicle in favour of the registered owner or in favour of other person the Court should make all endeavour to see how to protect rusting and decaying of the vehicle. This becomes more essential in the case, where the vehicle is on hire purchase agreement as loss of the vehicle is a public loss. This becomes more essential in the case, where the vehicle is on hire purchase agreement as loss of the vehicle is a public loss. Otherwise also, if the vehicle which is seized by the Police in connection with a criminal offence is allowed to decay or to be rusted by passage of time, where the Court does not consider it to be a fit case to release the vehicle, it will ultimately result in loss to the nation. In such cases, the court should not feel content and satisfied by rejecting the application. It has to find out the way so that loss of the vehicle as a result thereof loss to the financial institutions and nation or its owner is avoided. The petitioner may be correct in his approach that on discharge or acquittal of the accused in the criminal case he can get released the vehicle finally in his favour by the criminal Court. By the time final stage is reached in the matter, i am in agreement that this vehicle will be of scrap value and what we get ultimately in such cases, the burden of paying charges to cranes to lift this from Thana to carry it to its destination i. e. owners place. All the cases on which the reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle is released by the Trial Court, revision court, Appellate Court, and ultimately by the Supreme Court. From these decisions, we do not get guidelines how to protect decaying and rusting of the vehicles in a case where the Court declines to release the vehicle in favour of the person applied for its release. This matter needs to be examined from these aspects which are; (1) the vehicles is on Hire purchase Agreement; (2) the vehicle is not on Hire Purchase Agreement; and (3) where nobody has come before the Court to claim release thereof. These are broadly speaking three categories. ( 10 ) IN the first category of the case, the vehicle may be released in favour of the financier with the direction to him to dispose of it by public auction and whatever amount is received in auction is to be adjusted towards the loan amount and if the sale proceeds exceed outstanding amount of the loan, the balance thereof, is to be deposited with the court. This amount deposited in the Court is to be invested in a beneficial investments scheme of the Post Office or Nationalised Bank and ultimately disbursement thereof shall be in accordance with final decision of the criminal case. In the second category of the case, the Court has to take responsibility of sale of the vehicle by public auction and proceeds of the auction, is to be deposited in the Court. On deposit of the same, the Court is to invest in the beneficial finance schemes of the Post Offices or Notionalised Bank and disbursement thereof shall be in accordance with the final decision of the criminal case. So far as third category is concerned, the same procedure is to be applied by the Court as applied in the second category. However, it is made clear that where the Court considers in the given case that identification etc. of the vehicle is necessary for trial of the case, it may not be sold it. In that case the Court has to take all care to decide the matter within reasonable time to avoid any loss to the vehicle. ( 11 ) THOUGH none of the decisions on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case has any help to him, for his satisfaction, I am briefly referring to those cases. ( 12 ) IN the case of Assistant Forest Conservator and Ors. vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale (Supra), the matter pertains to the confiscation of the vehicle involved in forest offence. I fail to see how this decision is of any help to the petitioner in the present case. In the forest Act, there is a specific provision for the confiscation of the vehicle. There is yet another specific provision that if the offence is committed without knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, it may be released. In that case the orders are passed for confiscation of vehicle after giving notices to all the concerned persons and after recording satisfaction of the facts. In this case, at this stage of Sec. 451 of Criminal Procedure Code, no trial is conducted nor any inquiry is made on this issue. It is an interlocutory order made at the interlocustory stage on the basis of facts which are on the record. In this case, at this stage of Sec. 451 of Criminal Procedure Code, no trial is conducted nor any inquiry is made on this issue. It is an interlocutory order made at the interlocustory stage on the basis of facts which are on the record. In that case, the High court released the vehicle as it was satisfied that the Forest Officer failed to establish that the owner of the vehicle has knowledge of forest produce carried in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act by the driver of the vehicle. Here, in this case, it was not the case of the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class nor he has produced any evidence whatsoever to show that this offence has been committed by the driver without his knowledge. Moreover, it is a question of fact and both the Courts below have not accepted this ground of the petitioner and this Court is also in agreement with the Courts below. So, this decision of the Honble Supreme Court is not of any help to the petitioner. ( 13 ) DECISION in the case of Dashrathlal Gupta vs. The State of Maharashtra (Supra), suffice it to say, is not of any help to the petitioner. In this case, the Court ordered for release of the vehicle on execution of bond of Rs. 8000/- with one surety for production of the car. The Court though observed that the petitioner therein is not arrested for offence under the Prohibition Act either for having committed offence or has abetted and the order of the Trial Court has been modified. This decision has been given on its own facts. The matter has to be considered with reference to the facts of each case. Here, in the state, where total prohibition is there, if, the vehicle is released, it is very dangerous and the person involved in nefarious activity and lucrative business of transport, import, sale etc. of liquor will be encouraged. Otherwise, also the matter is still pending investigation and there may be all the possibilities of involvement of the applicant in this case. Apart from this, in this case, it is not the plea of the petitioner in the main application that the driver has taken the vehicle for his own use. of liquor will be encouraged. Otherwise, also the matter is still pending investigation and there may be all the possibilities of involvement of the applicant in this case. Apart from this, in this case, it is not the plea of the petitioner in the main application that the driver has taken the vehicle for his own use. In the Bombay case, the finding was that the person who committed offence has taken motor from its owner to bring his mother who was seriously ill from Bombay. So far as other two cases are concerned, they are not applicable to the facts of this case as therein, the Court has proceeded with a view to protect the vehicle and released the vehicles and in this case, I have taken care for protection of the vehicle from decaying and rusting and this apprehension of the petitioner does not survive. ( 14 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion, this petition fails and same is dismissed summarily. .