Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1595 (HP)

Mohender Kumar v. State Of H. P.

2018-09-04

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This criminal revision petition at the instance of the accused-petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, dated 12.06.2018, whereby the application filed for release of vehicle was ordered to be dismissed. 2. The accused-petitioner has sought release of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-31A-7872 alongwith its documents and key, which had been taken into possession by the police in case FIR No. 18 of 2018, dated 16.01.2018, registered under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. 3. It was averred that the petitioner was registered owner of the vehicle in question, which has been impounded by the police in the aforesaid FIR. Investigation of the case was completed. Since the vehicle was no longer required by the police, therefore, the same be released in his favour by imposing suitable and reasonable conditions. 4. The respondent-State filed its reply wherein it is clearly stated that they have no objection to release of the vehicle. However, the learned Court below rejected the application on the ground that "the vehicle being case property, at this stage, it cannot be released." 5. Evidently, the learned Court below has betrayed its complete ignorance to nature and scope of powers conferred upon it under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., whereby ample power has been conferred upon the Court as regards the custody and disposal of case property pending trial in certain cases. 6. The powers under the aforesaid Sections are to be exercised by Court of law in quick and expeditious manner bearing in mind (i) the owner of the vehicle should not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; (ii) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; (iii) if the proper panchnama before handing over the possession of vehicle is prepared that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence should be recorded mentioning the nature of the property in detail. 7. As per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others , (2001) 9 SCC 718 , wherein the Court in whose custody the vehicle was kept was ordered to be released on the following conditions: 1. He shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 7. As per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others , (2001) 9 SCC 718 , wherein the Court in whose custody the vehicle was kept was ordered to be released on the following conditions: 1. He shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 2. He must satisfy the court that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. 3. He shall not allow his son Deepak Singh to use the vehicle until disposal of the prosecution case against him. He shall file an undertaking in court to that effect. 4. He shall produce the vehicle either before the court or before such other authorities as the court may direct. 5. He will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case. 8. It is to be noted that learned trial Court can also take photographs of the vehicle in issue and also take bond from the petitioner that the vehicle would be produced as and when required by the Court. 9. In this regard, the Court is fully empowered to take appropriate security, the purpose of which is to prevent evidence being destroyed, altered or lost. 10. As already observed above, this Court is of the view that the learned Court below while rejecting the application has not borne in mind the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat , (2003) AIR SC 638, wherein it was observed as under:- "7.In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purpose, 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 panchnama before 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. 3. If the proper panchnama before 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. 21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time of the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This 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. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the learned Court below is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside. Consequentially, the application filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle is allowed, subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the Court below shall take photographs of the vehicle, which shall be countersigned by the petitioner as also the Magistrate concerned. (ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Court below. (iii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or such other authorities as the the Court may direct. (iv)He will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case. 12. In addition to that, the Court below may impose any other or further condition that may be suitable and found reasonable. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and resultantly the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, dated 12.06.2018 is set aside.