Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 218 (JHR)

TULSI RAJAK v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2004-02-26

LAKSHMANA RAO

body2004
Judgment : LAKSHMANA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, Tulsi Rajak claims to be the owner of the truck bearing registration No. BR 01h-4357 for which photocopy of registration has been annexed as Annexure A-2 to this application. He further prayed for issuance of an appropriate order quashing the order dated 4-11-2003 passed by the learned Court in T. R. No. 1043 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by this petitioner to release the truck in question was rejected. ( 2 ) EARLIER the petitioner has preferred criminal Revision No. 568 of 2003, of which annexure A-1 is the order of this Court, directing the Court below to call for a report from the concerned Police Station within seven days and thereafter considering the report he will pass appropriate order, in accordance with law regarding the release of the truck in question. After submission of police report, learned Court below considered the report and thereafter refused to release the truck in question in favour of the petitioner. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the truck in question bearing registration No. BR 01-4357 has been seized, alleging that it was carrying stolen coal, resulting institution of Nawadih P. S. Case "no. 78 of 2002. It was submitted that the truck of this petitioner was engaged in carrying goods on hire transportation. He is not concerned with the alleged carrying of coal rather he is simply owner of the truck in question. The learned Court below has refused to release the truck only on the ground that the tax token and permit were not genuine and on the basis of those documents illegal coals were transported. Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of submission undertakes to abide by any of the condition imposed by this Court in releasing the truck. ( 4 ) HE further submitted that the petitioner being the owner of the truck, who has given his truck on hire to carry on business, had no knowledge for what purpose the truck was transported. There is no claimant of the truck and the petitioner is the genuine owner of the truck and he has sub: mitted that the vehicle can be released. There is no claimant of the truck and the petitioner is the genuine owner of the truck and he has sub: mitted that the vehicle can be released. ( 5 ) IN support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision passed in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (9) SCC 718 : (2001 AIR jhar HCR 171) wherein the Honble Court has held that "we do not think it necessary to keep the vehicle in the compound of the court indefinitely for a very long time till the final disposal of this case. It is more advisable to entrust it to the registered owner on behalf of the Court under certain conditions. " ( 6 ) IN this case, as submitted, the truck has been seized and is lying since 31-8-2002 and the petitioner who is owner of the truck in question is sustaining heavy loss. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also cited a decision, reported in 2003 (4) jljr 134 (Jha) wherein It was 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. "7a. In the present case, it is not in dis-1 pute that the petitioner is the owner of vehicle. The only allegation is that at the relevant time, tax token and permit were not genuine, when the truck was seized. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the fact that the police for more than one year has seized the truck and since then it is lying, I think it proper to release the truck on executing bond to the satisfaction of the learned Court below with two insolvent securities. The petitioner will also satisfy that he will not change the feature of vehicle and will not dispose of the same till final disposal of the case. ( 9 ) IN the result this criminal revision is allowed. The petitioner will also satisfy that he will not change the feature of vehicle and will not dispose of the same till final disposal of the case. ( 9 ) IN the result this criminal revision is allowed. The order of learned Court below is set aside and the truck in question is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner after proper verification of all the relevant documents concerning the seized vehicle and on proper verification done, as ordered. ( 10 ) WITH this observation, this revision application is allowed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .