Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 460 (MP)

Panchamlal Gupta v. State of M. P.

2002-04-29

NARAIN SINGH

body2002
ORDER Narain Singh "Azad", J. 1. The petitioner seeks order of release of Jeep bearing registration No. M.P. 17-B/1948, on Supurdgi, in exercise of inherent powers, which is seized in Crime No. 97/2001, of Police Station Jaba, Dist. Rewa, in connection with offences punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code from one Nathulal Majhi, the driver. 2. The petitioner moved an application under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking Supurdgi of aforesaid Jeep, which stood disallowed by J.M.F.C., Rewa, on 18th October, 2001, and his Criminal Revision No. 206/2001 is also disallowed and rejected by Sessions Judge, Rewa, on 3rd November, 2001, wherein, the aforesaid order dated 18-10-2001 was in challenge, giving rise to this proceeding. 3. The facts as detailed in order dated 3rd November, 2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No. 206/2001, are as follows- On 5th October, 2001, informant Suryabali Mishra, Rajmani, Indrabali and Mohd. Yunus were travelling in aforesaid Jeep No. M.P. 17-B/1948 from Jaba to Theothar, in which Maheshwari Prasad Mishra and 4-5 other persons were also occupying their seats. At village Belgavan, accused Sadhu alias Rajendra Pandey also boarded this Jeep along with one person, who got the Jeep stopped near a culvert at village Chandi. At the same place, accused Sadhu alias Rajendra pandey fired a Katta on Indrabali, Sarpanch, which injured the hand of Suryabali Mishra. Thereafter, Sadhu alias Rajendra Pandey and his associate gave beating also to Rajmani and Suryabali but Indrabali could make his escape good. Rajmani sustained a gun-shot injury and became unconscious on the spot. On a report lodged by Suryabali Mishra. Crime No. 97/2001, was registered at P.S. Jaba, for offence punishable under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the same day, the aforesaid Jeep was seized from the possession of its driver Nathulal. A photocopy of seizure memo is marked as Annexure A/1. The officer who made the seizure marked the following facts and circumstances on the Jeep at the time of its seizure- 4. A photocopy of seizure memo is marked as Annexure A/1. The officer who made the seizure marked the following facts and circumstances on the Jeep at the time of its seizure- 4. The learned Revisional Court rejected the petitioner's application on the grounds that the accused are not heard on this point and the Jeep contains gunshot and pellet marks, which is the important evidence, therefore, till the Jeep is not produced as evidence in trial or the accused do not admit the aforesaid evidence, or admit the photographs of Jeep as evidence, the Supurdgi of Jeep may destroy the aforesaid evidence of the incident. 5. It is found explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Sharma vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1978 Cri.LJ. 1120, that in case the property is required to be produced during the course of trial, in Court, it may be with-held. The relevant portion in para 4 at page 1121, runs as under:- The court has to be circumspect in such a situation before releasing the property. While we reverse the decision of the courts below that the Special Judge had no power to release the seized property, we should not be taken to mean that whenever the claimant asks for the property back, he should be given back the said property. This has to be decided on its own merits in each case and the discretion of the court has to be exercised after due consideration of the interest of justice including the prospective necessity of the production of these seized articles at the time of the trial. If the release of the property seized will, in any manner, affect or prejudice the course of justice at the time of the trial, it will be a wise discretion to reject the claim for return. 6. Thus, the learned J.M.F.C. of the Revisional Court is found to have committed no illegality in refusing Supurdgi of seized vehicle. Consequently, in the absence of any miscarriage of justice, it is not found to be a fit case for exercising the inherent powers. 7. In result, this petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion hearing.