Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1260 (RAJ)

Kalu Khan S/o Daulat Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2003-09-05

D.N.JOSHI

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - D.N. Joshi, J.-This criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 5.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Revision Petition No. 28/03 by which the application for release of the vehicle (Tata Sumo No. RJ-06-C-2187) was accepted on furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and with the consent of both the parties the matter is disposed of finally at this stage. 3. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K Krishnan, reported in 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 657 that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party on Superdiginama till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence and the said vehicle shall be liable to be confiscated and it shall not be released without any bank guarantee. 4. In a recent case, reported in JT 2002 (10) SC 80 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai us. State of Gujarat), the Apex Court has held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the Police Stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. 5. It has been further held by the Apex Court that in case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owners, or the insurance company or by third person, the such vehicle may be ordered to,be auctioned by the Court, if the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. If insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handling over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is proper to pass following order that the seized vehicle (Tata Sumo No. RJ-06-C-2187), which was seized on 6.7.2003, be released on furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith two solvent securities in the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the following conditions: (1) He,shall produce the Tata Sumo in the Court as and when required to do so. (2) He shall get the Tata Sumo photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case. (3) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the Tata Sumo and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make identifiable. (4) He will not allow the Tata Sumo No. RJ-06-C-2187 to be used for any anti-social activities. 7. Accordingly, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh 5.8.2003 is modified to the above extent. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid order passed by the Apex Court, this Criminal Misc. Petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******