Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 346 (RAJ)

Gajraj v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-25

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. On perusal of the relevant documents and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found that Dumper bearing registration No. HR-38-S-6044, was seized by P.S. Chaupanki, District Alwar in FIR No. 181/2014 registered for the offence under Sections 279, 336, 379 and 120-B IPC and Sections 41 and 42 Forest Act. The application moved by the petitioner, being registered owner of the said Dumper, was rejected by learned trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure-2) mainly on the ground that orders issued by National Green Tribunal and Hon'ble Supreme Court have directed to take strict view in regard to the release of such vehicle. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the observation made by trial Court that no report in regard to the seized vehicle has been received from the Forest Department and hence, the Court has jurisdiction to dispose of this application. 4. In Harun v. State of Rajasthan (DB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 76/2014), it was held by Division Bench of this Court that there was no bar on the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to release the Vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 5. In Harun's case (supra), the Division Bench held as under:- “21. We accordingly hold that vehicle seized under the provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 cannot be released during the pendency of trial on supurdgi to the registered owner by the Magistrate, where the trial is pending, in view of specific bar to jurisdiction of Court under Sec. 52C of the Act. But, the bar to jurisdiction operates only when a Magistrate receives intimation under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 52 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation.” 6. In view of above, when no report regarding confiscation proceeding in respect of the vehicle was received by the trial Court, it was well within its authority to release the vehicle on the terms and conditions which it deems fit it proper. 7. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 290 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the application for disposal of the vehicles should be expeditiously disposed off. Keeping the vehicle seized & kept in police station will cause deterioration in the condition of the vehicle which is ultimately a national loss. 7. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 290 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the application for disposal of the vehicles should be expeditiously disposed off. Keeping the vehicle seized & kept in police station will cause deterioration in the condition of the vehicle which is ultimately a national loss. However, to take a strict view in order to curb any further occurrence of such offence, condition may be imposed regarding furnishing of bank guarantee. 8. In view of above, petition is allowed and the Dumper bearing registration No. HR-38-S-6044 seized in FIR No. 181/2014 is released on the application filed by the accused-petitioner subject to furnishing, bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the petitioner registered owner of the vehicle before the concerned Court. 9. The misc. petition preferred by the accused-petitioner is allowed. The order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set-aside. It is directed that Dumper bearing Registration No. HR-38-S-6044 shall be delivered to the petitioner on ‘supurdgi’ on his furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, “Supurdginama” in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, undertaking to produce the vehicle in question before the concerned court as and when required and shall keep the condition of the vehicle intact and shall not transfer, mortgage or otherwise alienate the vehicle or damage it and change its shape in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall also furnish photographs of the vehicle showing its number, colour etc. It is made clear that in future if the vehicle is found to have been used in similar offence, the same would be liable to be confiscated.