Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 260 (ORI)

Rajesh Chaudhury v. State

2011-04-26

I.MAHANTY

body2011
ORDER 26.04.2011 – Heard Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kanungo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. In the present revision application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in Misc. Case No.125 of 2010 arising out of G.F. Case No.494 of 2010 rejecting an application filed by him under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim release of the vehicle bearing registration No.OR-02-P-3388. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the essential ground of which the learned S.D.J.M. allow the petition under section 457 Cr.P.C. was that "the report of the I.O. reveals the name of the first owner, place of purchase, invoice number with date in respect to the vehicle are yet to be ascertained." Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the clarification issued by the R.T.O., Bargarh dated 8.7.2010 under Annexure-7 wherein the R.T.O. has confirmed that the present Vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02-P-8388 has been registered in the name of Rajesh Chaudhury (present petitioner), S/o. Motilal Chaudhury, Village-Kathdera, Po. Lachida, P.S.-Attabira, Dist. Bargarh. Apart from the same, copy of the original R.C. Book has been appended to the writ application under Annexure-2 which contains the entire history of ownership of the vehicle in question although appears to be some error mentioning the vehicle as "Maruti 800" in stead of "Maruti Omni" and the same has also been corrected by the R.T.O. by issuing fresh registration certificate under Annexure-8 to the present application. The most important point is that the chassis and engine number of the vehicle remains the same and it appears that the original error mentioning as "Maruti 800" was a clerical mistake. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in Misc. The most important point is that the chassis and engine number of the vehicle remains the same and it appears that the original error mentioning as "Maruti 800" was a clerical mistake. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in Misc. Case No.125 of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No.494 of 2010 is set aside and the vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02-P-8388 be released in favour of the petitioner on proper identification subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall furnish property security worth of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh); (ii) shall not transfer the ownership of the vehicle; (iii) shall not change the registration number; Chassis and Engine number of the vehicle in any manner; (iv) shall not use the seized vehicle in any objectionable/criminal activities; and (v) shall give an undertaking before the Court below to produce the vehicle before the Court below as and when required by it. The CRLREV is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. CRLREV disposed of.