Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 840 (RAJ)

Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2004-05-25

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 15.7.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta, by which he rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sec 451 in which a prayer was made that Jeep No. RJ-21 C-0396 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Jeep') be released and be handed over to him on-Supardginama, and further order dated 8.4.2004 by which the Judicial Magistrate further ordered that the Jeep be seized in the name of the Govt, and the same may be put up for auction and the auction amount be deposited with the Govt, be quashed and set aside. It arises in the following circumstances:- 2. That the jeep in question was first seized under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act in Case No. 160/02 and through order dated 24.7.2002 the jeep in question was ordered to be given to petitioner Kalu Ram on Supardaginama and the same was taken over by him on 29.8.2002 from Police Station, Merta Road, Nagaur. A receipt in this connection has been produced in the file. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that on the same day i.e. on 29.8.2002 the said jeep in question was again seized by the police, Merta under the provisions of Section 102 of Cr.RC. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 451 that the jeep in question be released to him on Supardaginama as earlier the same was given to him op Supardaginama. That application was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Merta Road, Nagaur by order dated 15.7.2003 and it was ordered in that order that within six months the police would make verification in respect of the jeep. 5. The further case of the petitioner that since after the expiry of six months from passing the impugned order dated 15.7.2003, the petitioner again sought the custody of the jeep but the same was rejected and it was, ordered to be seized in the name of Govt, and further ordered for auctioning of the jeep. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders this misc. petition has been filed. 6. I have heard both and perused the case file. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders this misc. petition has been filed. 6. I have heard both and perused the case file. 7. There is no dispute on the point that in Criminal Case No. 160/2002 in which the jeep in question was seized, was ordered to be released to the petitioner on Supardaginama vide order dated 24.7.2002 when that case under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act was finally decided. There is also no dispute on the point that the SHO, Police Station, Merta Road, handed over the jeep on 29.8.2002 to the petitioner. There is also no dispute on the point that on 29.8.2002 the jeep in question was again seized by the police under the provisions of Section 102 Cr.RC. 8. A copy of the Registration Certificate of the jeep has been produced, which shows that the initial registered owner of the jeep was Prabhu Ram and vide endorsement dated 21.5.2002 petitioner became the registered owner. There is also no dispute on the point that there is no other claimant claiming the custody of the jeep in question on Supardaginama. 9. In my considered opinion, when the jeep in question was first ordered to be released on Suparadaginama to the petitioner vide order dated 24.7.2002 and the jeep was taken by the petitioner on 29.8.2002 but the jeep was seized on the very same day again under the provisions of Section 102 Cr.RC., it appears that something was wrong and the order dated 24.7.2002 became redundant as soon as the jeep was seized on the very same day i.e. 29.8.2002 by police. Since there is no other claimant to the jeep and the registered owner as per the registration certificate appears to be the petitioner, therefore, in view of above facts, it would be just and proper that the jeep in question should be released to the petitioner on Supardaginama on such terms and conditions as the judicial Magistrate, Merta, may deem fit. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed, the order dated 15.7.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta, and 8.4.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Merta are quashed and set aside and it is ordered that the Judicial Magistrate, Merta shall give the jeep in question to petitioner Kalu Ram on Supardaginama on terms and conditions as he thinks fit. Petition is allowed, the order dated 15.7.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta, and 8.4.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Merta are quashed and set aside and it is ordered that the Judicial Magistrate, Merta shall give the jeep in question to petitioner Kalu Ram on Supardaginama on terms and conditions as he thinks fit. It is made clear that in case other claimants appear claiming the jeep to be theirs or there is otherwise report of the police, the learned Magistrate shall be free to pass appropriate orders afresh after giving proper hearing to the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******