Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 930 (RAJ)

Raja Ram @ Raju v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-23

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner is challenging the order dated 211.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sikrai, District Dausa whereby he has declined to release the jeep belonging to the petitioner on Supurdagi. He is further challenging the order dated 012.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Dausa whereby the learned Special Judge has confirmed the order dated 211.2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that two different jeeps were seized by the police in FIR No. 390/2005 registered for offence under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) read with Section 34, IPC. The jeep bearing registration No. RJ-05-T-0134 was initially owned by Ishwar Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh. However, according the present petitioner, vide agreement dated 18.02.2005 the said jeep was sold by Ishwar Singh, the registered owner, to the present petitioner for a value of Rs. 1,26,000/-. A copy of the registration papers showing Ishwar Singh as a registered owner and a copy of the agreement dated 18.02.2005 are attached with this petition as Annexures 1 and 2. The petitioner has further stated that since the said jeep has been financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company, therefore, the registration of the jeep is not in his name. Since, the petitioner had bought the said jeep from the registered owner, he moved an application for Supurdagi of the said jeep before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sikarai. However, vide order dated 211.2005, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petition ostensibly on the ground that the vehicle is involved in a serious offence. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Dausa. However, vide order dated 012.2005, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the investigation in the case is over and the challan has been filed. Therefore, the police does not require the jeep for any further investigational purpose. Still the jeep is lying in the police station and is exposed to the natural elements. He has relied on the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines for releasing a seized vehicle by the Courts. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, both the learned Magistrate and the learned Judge have ignored these guidelines. 4. On the other hand, Mr. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, both the learned Magistrate and the learned Judge have ignored these guidelines. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has argued that the jeep was used to abduct the prosecutrix. It was also used by the accused person for committing rape on her. Therefore, the vehicle should not be released as it was involved in a serious crime. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties and have perused the impugned orders. 6. Admittedly, Ishwar Singh, the registered owner, has not come forward to claim the custody of the vehicle. Although the present petitioner is not the registered owner, but there is no reason to doubt the veracity and validity of the agreement dated 18.02.2005 whereby the jeep has been sold by the registered owner to the present petitioner. The present petitioner is not an accused in the criminal case. In a catena of cases, this Court as well as the Honble Supreme Court have held that the exposure of the vehicle to the natural elements is not only a personal loss to the owner, but is also a loss to the nation. After all, constant exposure of the vehicle to the natural elements adversely affects its condition. Abandoned in the Police Station, lying under the open sky, the vehicle only deteriorates and becomes totally dysfunctional. Considering the national loss, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court had held that “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. 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. 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. Therefore, taking a cue from the above-noted case, we direct the SHO, Police Station Manpur, District Dausa to prepare a detailed panchnama of the vehicle, to photograph the vehicle and to hand over the possession of the vehicle to the present petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We further direct the petitioner not to sell, mortgage, gift or to transfer the vehicle to any person during the pendency of the trial, and to produce the vehicles as and when called for by the trial Court. In case, this condition is violated by the petitioner, the police is free to seize the vehicle again for the purpose of trial. 8. With these observations, this petition is allowed.