Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 528 (RAJ)

Hoti Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-15

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.06.2005 whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class), District, Bharatpur had dismissed the petitioners application for Supurdagi of the vehicle - Mahendra Sawai No. RJ-9T-0391. He has further challenged the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, District, Bharatpur whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the former order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2004 one Sugal Lal has submitted a complaint in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kama District, Bharatpur against seven named persons, namely Ayub, Aamin, Arshad, Sahid, Rujdar, Fajru and Hakam for offences under Sections 365 and 120-B, IPC. However, interestingly in the complaint there is no allegation against the owner of the vehicle, Chhote Lal. The complaint was sent for further investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC (henceforth to be referred to as the “Code” for short). On the basis of the said complaint the police registered a formal FIR No. 171/2004 against above named seven persons. During the course of investigation the police also seized the vehicle mentioned above. Although Chhote Lal was neither named in the FIR nor any allegation has been levelled against him, since he is the registered owner of the vehicle, the police impleaded him as an accused. The present petitioner is a power of attorney holder on behalf of Chhote Lal. In order to seek Supurdgi of the said vehicle, the present petitioner moved an application before the learned Civil Judge. However, vide order dated 18.06.2005, the learned Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the application ostansibly on the ground that the registered owner is named as an accused person and is absconding. Subsequently the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, District Bharatpur. However, vide order dated 20.10.2005, the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur was pleased to dismiss the said application. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that merely because the owner of the vehicle is named as an accused and merely because he is absconding that by itself would not justify the denial of Supurdagi of the vehicle to the petitioner. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that merely because the owner of the vehicle is named as an accused and merely because he is absconding that by itself would not justify the denial of Supurdagi of the vehicle to the petitioner. He has further relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283 in order to argue that the Honble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for releasing vehicles on Supurdagi. .4. On the other hand Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the vehicle was used in order to commit abduction, therefore, the offence is serious one. He has further contende that the vehicle might be needed during the course of the trial. Therefore, he has supported both the orders. .5. We have heard both the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders. .6. It is indeed, trite to state in catena of cases the Honble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the seizure of a vehicle and its subsequent custody in the police station adversely affects the condition of the vehicle since the vehicle is constently exposed to natural elements. Since, the vehicle is not used for an indefinite period, its machinary and its condition deteriorates. The loss of vehicle is not only a personal loss to the owner, but is also a loss to the nation. Hence, both the Apex Court and this Court have repeatedly directed that the vehicle should restored to the owner. In the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for releasing the vehicles in the following words as under:- .“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such 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. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the Insurance Company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the Insurance Company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company then the 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 the 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 handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.” 7. Merely because the accused is absconding is not a reason to deny the custody of the vehicle to the rightful owner. Taking a cue from the guidelines established by the Honble Supreme Court we quash and set aside the orders dated 18.06.2005 and 20.10.2005 and direct the SHO of Police Station, Deeg, Bharatpur to immediately release the vehicle -Mahendra Sawai RJ-9T-0391 recovered in FIR No. 171/2004 for offence under Sections 365 and 120-B, IPC after taking photographs of the said vehicle and after recording a detailed panchnama about said vehicle moreover we direct the petitioner to ensure that the vehicle is neither transferred, nor sold, nor alienated, nor mortgaged during the pendency of the trial and to produce the said vehicle as and when called for by the trial Court. 8. With these observations this petition is allowed.