Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated27.04.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, District Mathura whereby the release application of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle no. U.P.80-AQ 994 has been rejected on the ground that challani report has not yet been received.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vehicle of the petitioner was seized on the ground the driver of the vehicle did not produce the driving licence and document regarding road tax. It is further contended the petitioner moved an application for release of vehicle annexing all the documents authenticating himself that he is the owner, which has been illegally rejected by an order impugned.
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 in 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 view of facts and circumstances of the case as well as well settled principles of law, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 27.04.2010 cannot be sustained in law, accordingly it is quashed.
The present writ petition is finally with the direction in case, the petitioners moved a fresh appropriate application before the respondent no.1 within a period of 15 days from today, annexing all the documents therewith, to show his ownership the same shall be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month thereafter.
Order Date :- 14.6.2010 S.Ali