Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 924 (MP)

Virnal Chandra Rathore v. State of M. P.

2008-07-28

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2008
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 397 of CrPC, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.5.2008 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 75/08, whereby rejected the application filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the seized vehicle (Jeep) No. UP 93 F-9940 which had been seized during investigation of the crime by the Police concerned. 2. It is submitted that Police Bitharwar district Gwalior had registered a Crime No. 75/08 for the offence punishable under sections 364 and 365 of IPC and 11113 of the MPDVPK Act and during the investigation vehicle (Jeep) No. UP 93 F -9940 had been seized by the Police. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle (Jeep) concerned and he had handed over the jeep to his driver Kedar Singh, from whose possession the Police had seized the aforesaid vehicle. The petitioner had filed an application under section 457 of CrPC for interim custody of the vehicle to him as he is the registered owner of the vehicle (Jeep) concerned. The learned trial Court by impugned order rejected the aforesaid application, hence, this revision on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. l/State and perused the record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle (Jeep); he is not involved in this case but the jeep had been seized from the possession of the driver of the petitioner and if ultimate conclusion of the case turn into conviction of the accused person, then also there is no provision for forfeiture of the concerning vehicle (Jeep) belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner is also ready to produce the vehicle as and when called by the trial Court, during trial. In view of that, the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application for interim custody of the vehicle (Jeep) filed by the petitioner. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and also prayed for the interim possession of the vehicle concerned on supurdigi during pendency of the trial. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 6. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and also prayed for the interim possession of the vehicle concerned on supurdigi during pendency of the trial. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 6. Considering the facts of the case that admittedly on perusal of the registration certificate, it is clear that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle concerned and no fruitful purpose will be served by retaining the jeep during pendency of the trial, rather it will diminish, the value of the vehicle concerned and if the petitioner is ready to produce the vehicle as and when called by the trial Court during pendency of the trial then certainly the vehicle concerned can be given in the possession of the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and it is directed that on furnishing surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) the concerning vehicle (Jeep) No. UP 93 F-9940 shall be given to the petitioner in supurdigi with the condition that as and when directed by the trial Court the petitioner shall produce the jeep during trial and shall also not transfer the jeep without prior permission. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance. Certified copy as per rules.