Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 496 (ALL)

KHURSHEED v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-02-13

MOHD.TAHIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mohd. Tahir, J.—This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Agra in Misc. Case No. Nil of 2013 (State v. Vikram and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2013 under Section 60/63 Excise Act, P.S. Malpura, District Agra, whereby the release application moved by the revisionist was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.5.2013 an FIR was lodged by opposite party No. 2 Sujat Husain, Sub Inspector, P.S. Malpura, District Agra against three persons, namely, Ashok, Vijay and Vikram with the allegation that they were carrying 10 bags of illegal liquor in Auto No. UP 80 BJ 9647. The aforesaid vehicle Auto was seized by the police and in that regard, charge-sheet was also submitted against the accused persons under Section 60/63 Excise Act. Thereafter, the revisionist, who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, moved an application before the Magistrate concerned for the release of his vehicle. The said application was rejected by the Magistrate concerned on the ground that the said vehicle was seized by the police in connection with some crime and the report of its confiscation has been sent to the office of District Magistrate concerned. Hence, this revision has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 4. The counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and in that regard, he has filed photocopies of the registration certificate, fitness certificate, pollution certificate and insurance papers of the said vehicle. He has further submitted that on the date of incident the vehicle in question was hired by one Vikram who used it for transporting the illegal liquor without his knowledge, so the Magistrate concerned be directed to release the vehicle in question in favour of the revisionist during the pendency of the case in question. 5. The revisionist is admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle in question and he is also not the accused in the case in question. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in question in the police station concerned and there is likelihood of the condition of the said vehicle being deteriorated and ultimately the vehicle may become junk. 6. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in question in the police station concerned and there is likelihood of the condition of the said vehicle being deteriorated and ultimately the vehicle may become junk. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (46) ACC 223 (SC), has held that: “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 7. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Magistrate concerned should not have rejected the application of the revisionist for release of the vehicle in question. Hence the impugned order of the Magistrate concerned is illegal and improper and liable to be set aside. 8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the matter, I think it just and proper to direct the release of the said vehicle in question in favour of the revisionist during the pendency of the case in question. 9. In that view of the matter, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.10.2013 is hereby set aside The Magistrate concerned is directed to release the vehicle, i.e., Auto No. UP 80 BJ 9647 in favour of the revisionist on his executing a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned subject to the the condition that during the pendency of the case the revisionist will not make any internal or external change in the said vehicle; he will not transfer the same to any person and will produce the same at his expenses before the Court concerned or any other authority as and when he is directed to produce the same.