Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 802 (MP)

Ashraf v. State of M. P.

2013-07-15

S.R.Waghmare

body2013
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed under section 397 r/w S.401 of the CrPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No.115/2013. And counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of interim custody of the vehicle seized at Police Station Kurawar, District-Rajgarh in Crime No.38/2011. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that present petitioner Allanur Khan S/o M.N. Akhatar is the power of attorney holder and owner of the vehicle. Counsel submitted that petitioner Ashraf S/o Allanur Khan has already been enlarged on bail. Moreover counsel submitted that the petitioner has full chance of success in the trial whereas vehicle in question was seized quite some time ago. Counsel submitted that challan has been put up and the statements of various witnesses have already been recorded in Court and despite which the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rejected the application of the present petitioner for handing over the disputed vehicle on supurdagi. Counsel also urged the fact that learned Judge of the appellate Court has dismissed the application by holding that one witness Aatmaram remains to be examined in Court and it was likely that the vehicle would be needed in the said event. Counsel now submitted that this witness has already been examined in Court and as deposed he had not seen the vehicle on the date of incident and it was produced in Court by the concerned police station. Counsel submitted that now need of the vehicle is over and the custody should be handed over to the petitioner since he has power of attorney holder and he is registered owner also. Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 638 , the Hon’ble apex Court has observed as under: “The powers under section 451, CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely :- 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. If the proper panchanama before the handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. If the proper panchanama before the handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. The procedure for disposal of seized articles and currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and Narcotics drugs was suggested by the apex Court. Further Magistrate was directed to pass appropriate orders immediately and directed that articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. The said object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle is likely to deteriorate in custody and prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the trial Court be directed to hand over the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and candidly admitted that present petitioner Ashrat has now been examined in Court and challan has been put up before long time ago. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. However by way of abundant caution, it is directed that the petitioner shall give an undertaking in writing before the trial Court that he shall co-operate and produce the vehicle before it as and when necessary. Subject to compliance, the trial Court shall release the aforesaid vehicle on supurdagi on terms and conditions it may deem fit under the circumstances. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed off.