Heard Sri A.R. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur is impugned in the instant writ petition, whereby the release of vehicle of the petitioner being Jeep No. U.P. 62 E 1110 was refused. On perusal of the said order, it transpires that a report was called for from the office of A.R.T.O. concerned and according to report dated 19.11.2009 Rs. 2,37,746/- towards tax and additional tax was not deposited by owner of the vehicle. This fact was concealed from the A.C.J.M.-I, Jaunpur and the application for release of the vehicle was rejected.
Submission is that the vehicle was taken into custody pursuant to an accident. F.I.R. was lodged on 1.9.2009 by one Javed Ahmad alias Kallu at Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur under Sections 279, 304A I.P.C. The petitioner is admittedly owner of the vehicle who moved an application for release of the vehicle before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. Recovery of tax was challenged in the High Court in Writ Tax No. 11 of 2010 which was finally disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that papers relating to vehicle Jeep No. U.P. 62 E 1110 was surrendered on 31.1.2004 in accordance with law and, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax. The demand has been raised without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.1.2010 disposed of the writ petition finally directing respondent no. 1 to pass appropriate fresh orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law and the recovery of tax has been stayed. Photostat copy of certified copy of the order has been produced today in the Court which is taken on record.
The next submission is that there is no dispute that the petitioner is owner of the vehicle and he is entitled to take its possession. Last submission is that since admittedly the proceeding is arising out of an 2 accident and the case will take long period, the vehicle cannot be left standing at the police station which will only result in damage of the vehicle and, therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court the vehicle is liable to be released.
I have gone through the record as well as the impugned order. The Apex Court, in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 has clearly held that the powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes:- (i) Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused,(ii) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody, (iii) If the proper panchnama before handing over article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial, if necessary, (iv) This jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. The Apex Court has clearly held that appropriate orders should be passed immediately because keeping it at police station for a long period would only result in decay of the article. The court should ensure that the article will be produced if and when required by taking bond, guarantee or security. Similar view has been followed in a number of decisions of this Court as well. Mohd. Shamim Khan Vs. State of U.P., 2004, A.C.C. (48), 605. In the case of Tulsi Rajak Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004, Criminal Law Journal, 2450, it was held that truck lying in the police station for more than one year resulted in heavy loss of the petitioner and in the circumstances, the High Court permitted to release of the vehicle. In Gurnam Singh and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2003 (47) A.C.C., 1086, it was held that what so ever the situation be, there is no use to keep the seized vehicle at the police station or court campus for a long period, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time.
In the instant case, the court below has committed a gross error in rejecting the release application, even though relevant documents regarding ownership were produced before him.
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the order of the court below can not be left to stand. No good reason has been assigned for refusing the prayer for release of the said vehicle. Accordingly, the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jaunpur is quashed. The learned Magistrate concerned is directed to release the vehicle Jeep No. U.P. 62 E 1110 in favour of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him after taking adequate guarantee/ security of the said vehicle from the petitioner and also an undertaking that the vehicle will not be disposed of during pendency of the criminal proceedings.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally allowed.
Dt/-19.1.2010.
Rmk.