Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 339 (ORI)

Shri Ashok Kumar Saha v. State of Orissa

2004-07-30

A.K.PARICHHA

body2004
ORDER 30.7.2004. — The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 10.6.2004 of the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No. 306 of 2004 rejecting his payer for release of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-05-Q-4409 filed under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner in essence is that he is the registered owner of a Toyata Qualis vehicle bearing Registration No. 0R-05-Q-4409 and he had engaged the accused Santosh Kumar Behera as driver of the said vehicle and had given that vehicle to Lords Travel at Haripur Road, Cuttack for engaging the vehicle as Taxi. On 8.5.2004 the said driver took the said vehicle as usual to the Travel Agency, but did not return for two days. According to the petitioner, on enquiry he learnt that the vehi¬cle has been seized by the police in connection with Kendrapara P.S. Case No. 154/2004 for offences under Sections 457, 380, I.P.C. He then filed a petition Under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara for release of the afore¬said vehicle in his Zima on the plea that he is in no way con¬nected with the alleged offences that the alleged mischief was committed by the driver without his knowledge, that the vehicle would be damaged if it continues to remain in open place for a long time and that he would suffer irreparable financial loss. The learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara after considering the prayer and the objection of the prosecution refused to release the said vehicle with the observation that the vehicle is involved in several other criminal cases also. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being the registered owner of the seized vehicle and he being in no way connected with the alleged offences, the vehicle should have been released in his Zima atleast for the sake of preserving the new vehicle from decay and damage. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand, contends that the vehicle is involved not only in Kendrapara P.S. Case No. 154/2004, but also in Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No. 105/2004 under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. and other cases and is necessary for the purpose of investigation of those cases and so the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara was justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle. The plea of the petitioner is that the driver had taken the vehicle for the alleged clandes¬tine acts without his knowledge and so there is no legal bar for release of the vehicle in his favour (petitioner’s favour). It is not disputed that the petitioner purchased the seized vehicle with a bank loan and that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. The certified copies of the F.I.R., seizure list etc. which are produced do not show any involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. Replying to the query of the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara the S.I., Kendrapara P.S. has submitted a report under his letter dated 22.5.2004 that the seized vehicle of the petitioner is no more necessary for the purpose of inves¬tigation. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujurat, reported in (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444 while laying down the ratio relating to release of valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles their Lordships had occasion to observe thus : “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the Police Stations for along peri¬od. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immedi¬ately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as securi¬ty 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”. In several other cases also the Apex Court and our own High Court have ruled that unless it is essential, a seized vehicle should not be allowed to rot and get damaged lying in open place exposed to sun and rain and that such seized vehicle should be released in the Zima of the registered owner on proper terms and conditions, if such owner is not involved in the alleged offences in which the said vehicle was used. In the present case the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle and there is no material to show his prima facie involvement in the offences in which the seized vehicle was used. One of the I.Os has intimated the Court that the seized vehicle is no more necessary for the purpose of investigation. There is no requisition from the I.O. of the other cases that the vehicle is required for their investigation. One of the I.Os has intimated the Court that the seized vehicle is no more necessary for the purpose of investigation. There is no requisition from the I.O. of the other cases that the vehicle is required for their investigation. Admittedly, the seized vehicle is a new one and has been purchased by a bank loan. If the vehicle is now kept for a prolonged period exposed to sun and rain, it will not only be damaged, but the petitioner will also not be able to repay the bank loan. In such avenue, the learned S.D.J.M. should have followed the ratio laid down in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai’s case (supra) and should have released the vehicle on appropriate terms and conditions. Considering the above noted facts, circumstances and legal position, I am no inclined to sustain the impugned order which is contrary to the spirit of law. The revision is accordingly al¬lowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara is advised to release the seized vehicle in Zima of the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing security bond and guarantee of Rs. 4 lakhs and a cash deposit of Rs. 10,000/- and an undertaking that he would produce the said vehicle in Court as and when directed. Crl. Rev. allowed.