Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 272 (RAJ)

Manish Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2012-02-03

SANDEEP GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra rejecting the application filed by the petitioner tinder Section 451 Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. RJ 12 CA 2727 on Superdginama to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is power of attorney-holder of the registered owner of the vehicle and the jeep was stolen from the jurisdiction of Police Station Rishabhdeo on 28.10.2010, on which F.I.R. No. 525/2010 was registered at Police Station Rishabhdeo on 29.10.2010. During the course of the investigation of the said F.I.R., the jeep was seized and the petitioner applied to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kherwada for being granted the custody of the jeep in question on Superdginama which was accepted. In the meantime, it appears that the person who stole the jeep, used the same for transportation of illicit liquor, on which the jeep along with liquor was seized by the Station House Officer, Pachpadra on 12.12.2010 and an F.I.R. regarding the jeep being used for transportation of the liquor was registered and charge-sheet was filed thereupon. The petitioner who is the power of attorney- holder of the registered owner of the vehicle filed an application before the ACJM, Balotra for being granted the interim custody of the vehicle on Superdginama which was rejected by order dated 21.2.2011 and thereupon, the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra which was rejected by order dated 4.5.2011. Hence, the instant petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the victim in this case because his jeep was stolen away-and now he is being made to run from pillar to post for seeking the custody of his own jeep in question. He further submits that the petitioner was not charge-sheeted in connection with the F.I.R. No. 145/2010 and therefore it becomes apparent that the police itself is finding that the petitioner did not permit his vehicle to be used for transportation of the liquor. Thus, he submits that there was no rhyme or reason for the learned Courts below to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the strength of Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and directing the petitioner to approach the Excise Commissioner for release of his vehicle. 4. Thus, he submits that there was no rhyme or reason for the learned Courts below to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the strength of Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and directing the petitioner to approach the Excise Commissioner for release of his vehicle. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the orders impugned as well as the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act. 6. . It is true that the petitioner is being put to extreme hardship in this case but the fact remains that the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act, particularly Section 4 thereof is mandatory provision to the effect that whenever the means of conveyance is seized carrying excisable article, then the powers of releasing the vehicle have been granted exclusively to the Excise Commissioner. The petitioner is the power of attorney-holder of the registered owner of the vehicle and apparently, the result of the investigation in connection with F.I.R. No. 145/2010 does not show that the finding of the Investigating Officer is to the effect that the vehicle was being used for- transportation of the excisable articles with the connivance of the owner thereof. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner by virtue of the provision of sub-section (4) of Section 69, is entitled to plead before the Excise Commissioner that the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated and consequently, he is entitled to seek release of the vehicle without payment of any fine. 7. Resultantly, the misc. petition is disposed of while giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Additional Excise Commissioner, Jodhpur for release of the vehicle in question and in the event of such an application being filed, the Additional Excise Commissioner shall be under an obligation to decide the application within a period of three weeks from the date of filing the application after considering the fact that the F.I.R. for the theft of the vehicle was two months prior to seizure of the vehicle in the excise case and that thereafter the vehicle was directed to be released on Superdginama to the petitioner in connection with the F.I.R. No. 525/2010.Stay petition also stands dis of.Petition disposed of. *******