Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1148 (RAJ)

Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-02

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Rakesh, is aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhiwari, whereby the learned Magistrate while releasing the vehicle, namely Hydraulic Excavator Popland Machine Make PUNJ 520, CK 01722764 S.No.63154174, has imposed the condition that the petitioner shall furnish a Bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- of any nationalised Bank. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 24.05.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tijara, District Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle, namely Hydraulic Excavator Popland Machine Make PUNJ 520, CK 01722764 S.No.63154174. The said vehicle was allegedly involved in commission of offences under Sections 29, 32, 33, 41, 42 and 77 of the Forest Act, in commission of offence under Section 4/21 MMDR Act, Rule 68 MMCR Rules, 1986, and in commission of offence under Section 3 PDPP Act. Since these offences were committed, a F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No. 64/2013 was lodged at Police Station, Chopanki, Alwar. During the course of investigation, the petitioner's vehicle was seized by the Police. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for releasing of the said vehicle. By order dated 27.04.2013, the learned Magistrate allowed the application, but imposed the aforementioned condition. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the imposition of the aforementioned condition, he filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, by order dated 24.05.2013, the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition, and has upheld the condition imposed by the order dated 27.04.2013. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that in order to impose the condition the learned Magistrate has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the said case dealt with the laws prevalent in the State of Karnataka, which require the imposition of such a condition. But there is no such legal requirement in the laws of Rajasthan. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in imposing the said condition. Secondly, such condition is an onerous one, which in fact would deny the accessibility of the vehicle to the petitioner. Thirdly, the learned Judge has mechanically passed his order. Therefore, this court should interfere with the impugned orders. 4. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in imposing the said condition. Secondly, such condition is an onerous one, which in fact would deny the accessibility of the vehicle to the petitioner. Thirdly, the learned Judge has mechanically passed his order. Therefore, this court should interfere with the impugned orders. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned orders. 5. The imposition of a reasonable condition is certainly permitted by law. Although there may not be any requirement stated in the statutes with regard to imposition of a bank guarantee, but imposition of such a condition is inherent in the powers of the Court. After all, the vehicles, which are to be confiscated after trial, should not be released without imposition of a reasonable condition. Therefore, even if the learned Magistrate has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court relating to the laws of Karnataka, such a reliance cannot be faulted. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner's vehicle is involved in offence under the Forest Act, considering the fact that the vehicle would eventually be subjected to confiscation, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in imposing the condition that the vehicle should not be released unless a Bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- is furnished by the petitioner. Hence, the said condition is not an onerous one. Lastly, those who allegedly violated the law and cause environmental degradation by committing offence under the Forest Act cannot possibly expect mercy from the Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 27.04.2013. 7. As far as, the order dated 24.05.2013 is concerned, the learned Judge has appreciated all the facts of the case. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Judge has passed a mechanical order. 8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition: it is, hereby, dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of the main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******