Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1025 (MP)

Regional Sales Officer, Telco v. State of M. P.

2003-08-27

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Heard. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 26.2.2003 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 14/2003, whereby the Revisional Court has confirmed the order dated 9.1.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrated Class I, Bhind in Criminal Case No. 336/2001. The facts of the case are that a vehicle, which is a chassis, was seized by the Police Station, Phoop in Crime No. 336/2001 for committing offence under section 304A of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed an application handing over the said vehicle on supurdnama. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class directed to release the vehicle on supitrdnama, but while passing the said order has imposed condition that said vehicle shall not be sold by the present petitioner till the pendency of the trial. This order was challenged by the petitioner in revision. The revisional Court confirmed the said order. Hence, this petition is filed under section 482, CrPC. Shri L.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the condition imposed by the Court below for not selling the said vehicle is contrary to law and if the chassis is not sold, it will diminish the value of the chassis because the chassis is manufactured by the company only for selling the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Road Carriers v. R.K. Tekriwal [1993(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 236 = 1993(1) Crimes 810 ]. In this case, this Court has observed that this is a matter of common knowledge that if a machinery including the motor-tractors are kept idle then they are bound to deteriorate in value as the machinery is likely to be rusted. The chassis can be used only after building a body by the purchaser. In such circumstances, if the vehicle is not sold it will remain idle and it is likely to diminish, in value. In the aforesaid case, this Court had directed to prepare a list showing chassis and engine numbers of the vehicle and had further directed to keep the photographs of the tractors and chassis and engine numbers on record. Thereafter, the vehicle was directed to be delivered to the owner of the vehicle. In the aforesaid case, this Court had directed to prepare a list showing chassis and engine numbers of the vehicle and had further directed to keep the photographs of the tractors and chassis and engine numbers on record. Thereafter, the vehicle was directed to be delivered to the owner of the vehicle. The said judgment was cited before the lower Court, but the lower Court distinguished it by observing in that case that photographs were taken in presence of the counsel for the parties. After perusing the aforesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that the· same procedure can still be followed in the present case. The trial Court may release the vehicle after obtaining the photographs and number of chassis and engine of the vehicle in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The chassis and engine numbers can be noted in presence of counsel for the parties. If any of the parties does not cooperate in following the aforesaid procedure, then the Court can prepare a list and obtain photographs as directed above. With these observations, this MCrC stands disposed of.