Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 840 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-17

K.C.SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred this Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the orders passed by the courts below be quashed and set aisde and his application filed under Section 451 Cr.RC. for delivery of Tractor and trolly on Supurdaginama be accepted. 2. The Tractor No. RJ 05-1R 6437 and its Trolly were seized by the police in the case involving offence under the Forest Act. The police after investigation has filed charge sheet against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner who is owner of the aforesaid tractor and trolley moved on application under Section 451 Cr.PC. before the trial court, for releasing the tractor-trolly on Supurdagi-nama in his favour. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 5.7.2004 dismissed the said application. The revisional court vide its order dated 16.7.2004 also dismissed the revision petition. 4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is a registered owner of the tractor and trolly and he has nothing to do with the offence alleged to be committed and with which the tractor and trolly were connected, inasmuch as he was carrying the wood of a private person and that no complaint was lodged by the Forest authorities. Learned counsel submitted that tractor and trolly are stationed at the Police Station for considerably long time and there is fear of decaying the tractor and engine and tyres etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish bank guarantee, if so ordered. 5. I have considered the above submission and have gone through the impugned orders. It appears that the learned revisionsl court has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner on the basis of law propounded by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan (2000 Cr.L.R (SC) 657) . I have also gone through the case law. The Apex Court has propounded that the vehicles involved in the offences arising out of Forest Act should not generally be released on Supurdagi-nama and if the court feels that delivery of such vehicle should be delivered to its registered owner, the court may direct delivery of vehicle on furnishing Bank Guarantee, which is the minimum one. 6. The Apex Court has propounded that the vehicles involved in the offences arising out of Forest Act should not generally be released on Supurdagi-nama and if the court feels that delivery of such vehicle should be delivered to its registered owner, the court may direct delivery of vehicle on furnishing Bank Guarantee, which is the minimum one. 6. Taking into consideration, the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the facts that appellant is a registered owner of the vehicle in question and that the challan has already been filed against the accused and the tractor and trolly are lying stationed at the Police Station for considerably long period, I consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice that custody of the aforesaid vehicle with trolley should be delivered to the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. 7. Consequently, this petition is allowed and it is ordered that custody of the tractor No. RJ 05-1R 6437 and the trolley be delivered to the petitioner, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs. One lac along with Supuradgi-nama of Rs. One lack and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that petitioner shall not alienate/transfer the vehicle to any one nor shall change its shape, colour etc. He shall produce the tractor and trolly before the trial court as and when directed to do so.Petition allowed. *******