Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 246 (RAJ)

Fakru v. State of Rajasthan, through P. P.

2021-01-30

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed against the order dated 28.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Tijara, District Alwar whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwadi District Alwar rejecting petitioner's application for release of vehicle, has been dismissed. 2. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no statutory bar under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for brevity “the Act of 1884”) on the jurisdiction of the Judicial Court for releasing the vehicle. He submitted that Section 10 of the Act of 1884 nowhere provides forfeiture of the vehicle allegedly used in commission of the offence under the Act. He submitted that even the Investigating Agency has submitted its no objection with the learned Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle in his favour. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 290, he prayed that the vehicle in question be released in his favour. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the entire scheme of the Act of 1884 or under the Explosive Substances Act 1908, there is no provision which bars jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate to release the vehicle allegedly used in commission of offence. Section 10 of the Act of 1884 does not speak of forfeiture of the vehicle allegedly used in commission of the offence and even otherwise also, it is settled law that merely because a vehicle is liable to be confiscated after trial of the case, it is no ground to deny release of the vehicle. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to allow this criminal miscellaneous petition. 6. The order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Tijara, District Alwar in Criminal Revision No. 25/2020 is quashed and set aside. 6. The order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Tijara, District Alwar in Criminal Revision No. 25/2020 is quashed and set aside. The vehicle, Pik-up bearing registration No. RJ-40 GA 3618 is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner on ‘supurdginama’ on his producing original registration certificate and on satisfying following conditions:- (1) He furnishes a person bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 2,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and when required to do so. (2) He shall get the vehicle in question photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case. (3) The personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further carry the photographs of persons identifying them before the Court with full residential particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them. (4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question and not to lease it to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.