Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 101 (RAJ)

Bhagchand v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-12

M.N.BHANDARI

body2015
Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the orders dated 26.07.2014, 07.02.2002, 24.08.2010, 11.11.2010 & 18.01.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sarwar, district Ajmer and Additional Sessions Judge, Kekri dismissing the revision petition. 2. Learned counsel submits that an order for release of motor cycle on “Supurdgi” was passed. The petitioner/s took possession of motor cycle but he was directed to furnish copy of insurance, which was later on furnished. He could not furnish stamps of Rs.5/- each, as those stamps were not available. The Court had granted time but looking to the unavailability of stamps, it could not be furnished. Later on, proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. were initiated in the year 2002 but the petitioners were not knowing about those proceedings. The motor cycle so released and given on “Supurdgi” to the petitioner/s was stolen followed by FIR in the year 2004. Ignoring the aforesaid fact, the impugned orders have been passed by the Courts below whereby on account of non-production of stamps for bond, order for “Supurdgi” of vehicle was recalled followed by recovery of vehicle by seizure. The petitioner/s preferred a revision petition, however, it was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh to challenge the order dated 07.02.2002 and other orders along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The revision petition was then dismissed without considering any aspect of the matter, thus the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record. 4. It is admitted by the petitioner/s himself that an order for release of vehicle on “Supurdgi” was passed in the year 2000 and on 21st April, 2000, the petitioner/s was directed to submit insurance of the vehicle apart from stamps. The petitioner/s was given sufficient time but other than production of insurance, stamps were not produced. On 07th February, 2002, an order was passed for forfeiture of bond so as recovery of vehicle. While cancelling the “Supurdginama”, notice was served on the petitioner/s and thereupon, he put in appearance on 19th December, 2009. The reply to the application was not given, thus chance to file reply was closed on 24th August, 2010. An order for forfeiture of amount of bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- was also passed. While cancelling the “Supurdginama”, notice was served on the petitioner/s and thereupon, he put in appearance on 19th December, 2009. The reply to the application was not given, thus chance to file reply was closed on 24th August, 2010. An order for forfeiture of amount of bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- was also passed. After that, the petitioner filed reply on 09th November, 2010 with the request to drop the proceedings. On 11th November, 2010, the petitioner did not appear before the Court, thus application was dismissed in default. Again an application was moved on 15th January, 2011 to drop the proceedings but it was dismissed finding it to be not maintainable. The revision petition initially filed was dismissed as challenge to the order dated 07th February, 2002 was not made. The petitioner/s again preferred a revision petition to challenge the said order apart from other orders. The issue of limitation apart from merit was considered and finding no substance therein, it was dismissed on merit apart from limitation. The way, the matter was taken by the petitioner/s shows non-compliance of the order after release of vehicle and, that too, after giving reasonable time for it. When in a period of nearly two years, required stamps were not filed, order was passed on 07th February, 2002 to recover the vehicle. The challenge to the said order, even if came to the notice of the petitioner later on in the year 2009, delay is without justification in the revision petition filed in the year 2011. 5. Looking to the unexplained delay to challenge the said order/s and even on merit, I do not find any error in the impugned orders, hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed so as the stay application.