Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9540 of 2021 Applicant :- Devendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State through video conferencing.
By means of this application, the applicant has prayed for release of Motor Cycle No.UP-80 DZ-7234 in Crime No.0089 of 2020, under Section 60/72 of UP Excise Act at Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra by quashing the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by Session Judge, Agra in Criminal Revision No.101 of 2021 (Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.6.
Devendra Singh is the owner of Motor Cycle No.UP-80 DZ- 7234. The said vehicle was seized by the police on the ground that 100 packet of Deshi Daru, which were kept in a bag, hanging on the said motor cycle, were recovered from the said vehicle. Consequently, the applicant filed a release application on 02.07.2020 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra to release the said vehicle and the said application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 15.01.2021 stating therein that the proceeding under Section 72 of Excise Act is pending before the District Magistrate/Collector, Agra. Against the said order dated 15.01.2021, the applicant has filed a revision before the District & Session Judge, Agra on 05.03.2021, which was also rejected vide order dated 09.03.2021. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has filed the instant application.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that while passing the impugned order, the court below has not properly appreciated the material on record. The applicant is not an accused in alleged case crime nor he has committed any offence as alleged in the impugned first information report. It is further submitted that the said vehicle was never used for any illegal purpose. The applicant is having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that unless the seized vehicle is released in favour of the applicant, he will be seriously prejudiced and there is no useful purpose to keep the vehicle during pendency of trial, hence, the applicant is ready to give the sureties for releasing the vehicle.
I have gone through the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that it is not in consonance with the requirement of Section 457 Cr. P.C. which entails that the court shall determine the question of entitlement of possession under that section. In this case it is not in dispute that the applicant was entitled to possession of the aforesaid vehicle. The ownership of the said vehicle was not in dispute at all. Consequently, once the prayer before the court below was made for release of the said vehicle, the Court should have considered only the question of entitlement of possession. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of apex court reported in 2003 (46) ACC 223 Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai v. State of Gujrat. He relied upon para 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment. Para 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:
"14. In our view, whatever be the situation. It is of no use to keep 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 returns of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
15. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possessions of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."
The aforesaid view certainly support the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle detained at the police station itself.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present applicant u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off finally with the direction that the vehicle i.e. Motor Cycle No.UP-80 DZ-7234 shall be released in favour of the applicant immediately subject to the following conditions:-
(i) He shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the concerned Police Station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof.
(ii) He shall execute a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
(iii) He shall keep the vehicle insured at all times till the conclusion of the trial and produce the Insurance Certificate before the Trial Court as and when required; he must satisfy the Court that he is the registered owner of the vehicle.
(iv) He shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle.
(v) He shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or before such other authorities as the Court may direct.
(vi) He will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case.
(vii) He shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence.
Order Date :- 20.5.2021/Ajeet Digitally signed by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav Date: 2021.05.21 16:40:24 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad