JUDGMENT Shiv Shanker, J.
1. This criminal revision has been directed, against the order dated 24.9.2005 passed in release application No. nil of 2005, State v. Unknown, under Section 41 Cr.P.C./411 I.P.C., P.S. Karvi, District Chitrakoot whereby the release application of the applicant revisionist was rejected on the ground of beyond jurisdiction.
2. The brief facts, arising out of the case are that on 18.7.2005 the truck bearing No. U.P. 70/AT 2262 was booked by Delhi Assam Roadways Indore and plastic granule was loaded on the truck of the applicant for the transportation to the destination of District Varansi. In the way of transportation of goods the second driver Sri Kamlesh Kumar Shukla had badly injured the driver Harish Chandra with an intention to commit loot fled away with loaded truck in question on 19.7.2005. He was admitted in the hospital by visible persons. In this regard a first information was lodged at police station Bareili, District Raisen (M.P.). On 25.7.2005, the applicant got a telephonic message from unknown person that his truck was lying in the area of the police station Karvi, District Chitrakoot (U.P.) and as such the applicant revisionist rushed to the site and found that the truck was found unloaded and on an enquiry, it was informed that the second driver Kamlesh Kumar Shukla fled away with the goods of truck towards Rajapur. The applicant informed this fact to the concerned police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot and the truck was brought to the police station Karvi with the help of police and by the joint efforts of the police personnel, the goods were also recovered under the limits of police station Rajapur and was also taken by the police in its custody and a report was lodged in this regard at P.S. Karvi, District Chitrakoot on 29.7.2005 which was registered as Case Crime No. Nil of 2005, under Sections 392/412 I.P.C.
3. The truck in question was purchased by applicant and the same was registered with the registering authority in his name after taking financial assistance from I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. and the same was hypothecated with the aforesaid bank.
4. Thereafter, the release application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. was moved before the Magistrate Chitrakoot on 3.8.2005 which was rejected on the ground that Court of Chitrakoot has no jurisdiction to decide the release application regarding the release of truck in question by his order dated 24.9.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant revisionist has preferred this criminal revision in this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the both the sides and perused the records.
6. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the learned court below has wrongly rejected the release application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and that the court below has jurisdiction to decide the release application as the truck was found within the jurisdiction of P.S. Karvi where it was taken into custody by the police. It is further contended that if the truck in question is not released then the truck will be became decay and great hardship is to be caused to the applicant revisionist and that the applicant will be unable to pay the installments of the concerned bank. The truck is lying in the police custody from July 2005. on the other hand, it is urged that the learned Magistrate has committed no illegality in rejecting the release application.
7. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties.
8. It has been provided under Section 183 Cr.P.C. that when an offence is committed whilst the person by or against whom, or the thing in respect of which the offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey or voyage, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of that journey or voyage.
9. The truck in question was taken from Indore to Varansi and it was looted and the same was found within the jurisdiction of P.S. Karvi, District Chitrakoot(U.P.) and, therefore, the court below has jurisdiction to decide the release application on merits of the case according to the provisions of Section 183 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the court below has committed the illegality in passing the impugned order.
10. It has been laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat reported in 2003(46) ACC 223 that the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes namely-
1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. 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.
11. The Apex Court has clearly held that appropriate orders would 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 in Mohd. Shamim Khan v. State of U.P., 2004 ACC (48) 605.
12. It was held in the case of Tulsi Rajak v. State of Jharkhand, 2004 Criminal Law Journal 2450, 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. It was held in Gurnam Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal, 2003(47)A.C.C. 1086, 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 and 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. The above principles have been followed by this Court in Rajeev Agarwal v. State of U.P., 2005(3) JIC 42 (All).
13. After taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncement, I am of the opinion that the truck in question is liable to be released in favour of the applicant-revisionist who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I come to the conclusion that this revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
15. The revision is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is directed to the court below to release the vehicle in question after taking adequate security with an undertaking that as and when the vehicle in question is required, the same will be produced in District Court or in any other Court.