Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13615 of 2020 Applicant :- Mohd. Shadab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Tripathi
Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.07.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Revision No.48 of 2020 (Mohd. Shadab Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 29.06.2020 passed by court of Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Jhansi in Misc Criminal Case No.58 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.17 of 2020, under Section 11 (d)(e)(k), 30 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and 177, 178, 179 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Police Station- Sakrar, District- Jhansi and release the DCM vehicle of the applicant bearing Registration No.UP 83 T-5714.
In brief fact of the case, relevant for the disposal of this application is that on 23.02.2020 on information of the Mukhbhir, local police was checking vehicle coming from Mauranipur by putting a barrier on the road. The DCM vehicle No. UP 83 T-5714 along with three other vehicle were intercepted and checked by the police. On checking large number of bovines were recovered from the vehicles. The driver could show papers of the vehicle and papers for transporting the animals. The FIR has been lodged on the same date as Case Crime No.17 of 2020 under Section 11 (d)(e)(k), 30 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and 177, 178, 179 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. After investigation I.O. has submitted charge sheet under Section 11 (d)(e)(k), 30 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and 177, 178, 179 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the accused persons. Application for release of vehicles has been moved by the applicant and others before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Jhansi, which was rejected by impugned order dated 29.06.2020. Against the said order dated 29.06.2020 Criminal Revision No.48 of 2020 was preferred before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhansi, which was dismissed by impugned order dated 27.07.2020. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 29.06.2020 and 27.07.2020, the applicant has moved this application only for release of his vehicle No. UP 83 T 5714.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that his said vehicle was hired by one Mohd. Naushad and Mohd. Rashid for transportation of the goods from Jhansi to Firozabad and the applicant was paid relevant charges for the use of the vehicle. He further submits that applicant is not owner of the seized bovines recovered from the vehicle they belonged to the Mohd. Naushad and Mohd. Rashid. Applicant has no concern with the bovines that were transported from his vehicle. He further submits that keeping of seized vehicle at police station for a long period is of no use and by this vehicle is unsafe and its condition is deteriorating due to disuse. The reason mentioned in the impugned orders for refusing the release of the vehicle is against the law. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on view taken by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2002 (10)SCC 283, Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another (2001) 10 SCC 88 and Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others (2001) 9 SCC 718.
Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that seized vehicle is case property and there is no illegality in the impugned orders.
The general law relating to release of valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and narcotic drugs seized in connection with a crime pending investigation or trial by the Magistrate has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (supra). In said decision of their Lordships the issue of vehicles seized in connection with crime and parked at police stations has been dealt with and answered thus.
" 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bonds and guarantee as well as surety for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of the application for return of such vehicles.
18. 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 the 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 the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicle may be sold as per 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 possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicles should be taken and detailed Panchnama should be prepared."
In Rajendera Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another (supra), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court "We are not deciding the question as to the title of the vehicle in dispute nor the correctness of the rival versions regarding the transactions relating to the vehicle. We do not want the vehicle to remain in compound of the police station exposed to heat and cold because automobile is likely to be lost to all in such situation. To avert this situation, we are inclined to entrust it temporarily to the applicant who is ostensible name holder in the registration certificate. The custody of the vehicle with the applicant will be on behalf of the court and this arrangement is only till the stage when the court passes the order regarding the disposal of the property on conclusion of the trial."
In Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) while Apex Court has observed that "we do not think it necessary to keep the vehicle in compound of the court indefinitely for a very long till the final disposal of the case. It is more advisable to entrust it to the registered owner on behalf of the Court under certain conditions."
The purport of the case law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously. The reason being that owner of the articles should not suffer because of it remaining unused and the police should not be required to keep the article in safe custody. It has further been laid down in the aforecited case laws that while giving custody of the article, the article should be released on proper security.
In the instant case, the applicant is not accused of this offence. He is registered owner of the said vehicle. He has no concern with the bovines. He is only transporter on payment basis. Before release of the vehicle Panchnama may be prepared regarding height, length and width of the vehicle, if so, required. Adequate bond with sureties may be taken keeping in view the security for expenses of the animal care.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the material on record of the case and precedent law cited at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that as per the legislative intent of Section 451 Cr.P.C., the property means any property regarding which, an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for commission of any offence, and therefore, the release of the vehicle/article/currency notes under Section 451 Cr.P.C. cannot be restricted merely on account of fact that they were used for commission of the any offence and are case property.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the aforecited precedent law, the present application is partly allowed for the seized vehicle of the applicant.
Accordingly, impugned orders dated 29.06.2020 and 27.07.2020 are quashed and set aside and the learned court concerned is directed to release the vehicle No.UP 83 T-5714 in supardigi of the applicant upon his furnishing a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned and on adequate conditions.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Ashutosh Pandey