Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1342 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-22

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant Misc. Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking direction that the onerous condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajsamand directing the Tehsildar, Nathdwara not to permit transfer of the petitioner's land by a letter/notice dated 5.4.2007 should be directed to be deleted. 2. Defects pointed out by the office are over-ruled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liquor recovered during the course of the investigation of the F.I.R. No. 14/2003 and (Criminal Original Case No. 113/2003 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajasamand) registered at Police Station Kunwaria, Distt. Rajsamand was directed to be handed over to the petitioner, who was the power of attorney holder of the' licensee Mukesh and party by the order of this Court dated 14.11.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. petition No. 1394 of 2006 (Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan) . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in pursuance to the order of this Court, all the document of the petitioner's land were annexed with the supardginama and the same were submitted on 5.4.2007, but when the petitioner went to the Malkhana of the concerned Police Station, he observed that the liquor was not in a good condition, on which, he did not accept the custody of the liquor. Thereafter, the liquor seized in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. was destroyed under the directions of the District Excise Officer, Rajasamand on 25.3.2009. 5. A nothing to this effect has also been made in the original Malkhana Register of the Police Station Kunwaria, which was summoned by this Court. It is apparent that the superdginama which the petitioner submitted before the Court below was never visualised and was never given effect to because the petitioner did not take the physical custody of the liquor in question. Thereafter, the trial of the case has been completed and two accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court. The petitioner's supardginama became effective subject to his taking physical possession of the liquor in question. as has been observed above, the physical possession of the liquor was not taken by the petitioner for the reasons stated above. Thereafter, the trial of the case has been completed and two accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court. The petitioner's supardginama became effective subject to his taking physical possession of the liquor in question. as has been observed above, the physical possession of the liquor was not taken by the petitioner for the reasons stated above. The liquor thereafter has been admittedly destroyed by the Committee formed under the directions of the Excise Officer and the Panchanama regarding destruction of the liquor has been placed on record by the learned Public Prosecutor. A copy of the Malkhana Register entry has also been placed on record. 6. In view of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate directing the Tehsildar, Nathdwara not to permit the transfer of the petitioner's land, cannot be said to be justified. 7. Resultantly, the misc. petition succeeds. The condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajsamand by letter/notice dated 5.4.2007 imposing a restraint upon the Tehsildar, Nathdwara not to permit the transfer of the petitioner's land which is described in the aforesaid letter is hereby revoked.Petition allowed. *******