Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 7 (CHH)

MOHAMMAD SHEKHAWAT v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2001-01-09

R.S.GARG

body2001
ORDER Parties are finally hard. Applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 14-10-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 93/2000, refusing to give the possession of the property in custody of the applicant and order dated 10-11-2000, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Revision No. 215/2000. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant submits that for almost about one year his truck is lying idle in the police station and condition of the truck is deteriorating every day. According to the applicant, one Govind Ram Agrawal hired the truck of the applicant for transportation of certain rice from one state to another and after loading the goods in the said truck supplied him certain documents showing that the said shipment was levy paid and proper Mandi-fee was paid on the same. According to the applicant, when the truck was intercepted at the border of the State, the applicant through his driver informed the authorities that he had not committed any offence. The applicant further submits that in fact the applicant did not commit any offence, but he was also defrauded by the said Govind Ram Agrawal as he was 'supplied the forged documents. He submits that if the truck remains in custody of the police for some more time, the value of the truck would diminish to zero and even if, ultimately, the accused is acquitted or property is confiscated in favour of the State, none of the parties would be benefitted because none would get a running truck, but would be supplied junk only. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that almost abour 17.00 MTs. rice was being transported under forged documents and complicity of the applicant in commission of the crime cannot absolutely be ruled out. According to him, the forged documents would prima facie show the intention of the applicant and as the truck was used in commission of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to the custody and possession of the truck. I have heard the parties at length. Undisputedly, the truck was seized on 12-1-2000 under the charge that it was transporting certain goods and the documents carried by the said driver were forged. I have heard the parties at length. Undisputedly, the truck was seized on 12-1-2000 under the charge that it was transporting certain goods and the documents carried by the said driver were forged. It is also not in dispute before me that the truck is lying idle with the police and this court would not be justified in taking judicial notice of the fact that the property would not be looked after properly, if it is lying idle in police station. Whether the truck is liable to be confiscated or not is a question to be decided at the time of the trial, but the Court cannot be oblivion to the fact that at the magisterial level trial does not conclude within a short span of time. The trial before a Megistrate, First Class, ordinarily takes 2 to 5 years. If for such a long period the truck is allowed to rot and rust, ultimately at the time of final judgment, none of the parties would be benefitted by return of the vehicle, either in favour of the applicant or under confiscation in favour of the State. Taking into consideration that each party is entitled to use its own property and it would be a national loss to allow the truck to rot and rust and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in police custody for an indefinite period, I am of the opinion that after lapse of almost about one year of the seizure of the truck the same deserves to be released in favour of the applicant. The orders passed by the two Courts in view of the lapse of time deserve to and are accordingly set aside. The truck be leased in favour of the applicant. The applicant shall be obliged to furnish a suprudnama in sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court with local surety bond in sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the said Court, so also a valid bank gurantee of a nationalized bank preferably of a local bank and in case, the applicant is not in a position to furnish the bank guarantee of local bank, then the trial court in its discretion shall allow him to furnish bank guarantee of some nationalized bank of a different place, but only after obtaining verification from a local branch of the said bank. The other terms and conditions regarding custody of the vehicle may be fixed by the trial court. The petition is allowed. No costs. Certified copy within three days. Petition Allowed.