JUDGMENT Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.
1. An application for release of Truck (No. H.R. 46/0632) which was, seized by police of police Station Ekidil, Etawah on 13.8.2006, used in a robbery (Case Crime No. 150 of 2006) was rejected by the special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas Act, and that is what brings the owner of the truck here under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Heard Sri Ajay Bashishth, advocate for the applicant and Sri A.K. Sant, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
3. The trial court rejected the application for release of the Truck on the following grounds;
(i) That the address of the owner of the truck has to be verified.
(ii) That one of the accused Rajesh Kumar who 4s wanted in the alleged robbery is the husband of the applicant, who claims herself to be the owner of the truck, and the husband must surrender, before the truck is returned.
(iii) That the truck is a case property, because the robbers came in the truck, and fled away in the truck after robbery.
4. When the Supreme Court lays down a law, it is the duty of the Court to be guided by the principles set forth by the Supreme Court. The learned Judge has not taken into account the guidelines issued by the Supreme court regarding the returning of the vehicle, in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat 2003 (46) ACC, 223.
5. The gravamen of the judgment of the Supreme court is that unless there are special and compelling reasons, the vehicle must be returned back, because if it is retained at the police station, it will rust and deteriorate.
6. The aforesaid reasons given by the trial judge are wholly airy and unsustainable;
As regards the point No. 1, there is no need for any verification because there is on record the entry of the name of the applicant as owner in the records of the Regional Transport Authority. As regards the second point, the truck cannot be retained for exerting pressure upon the wife for producing her husband. That is not a judicially justifiable stance.
As regards the point No. 3 that the truck is a case property because it was used in robbery, is also not a ground, for non return of the truck, because, the truck would not likely to be needed to be exhibited at the trial, and at the most what may be done, is, to obtain a photograph of the truck and keep it on record.
7. In view of what has been said above, the application succeeds, and the order of the Special Judge, is set aside The truck shall be returned to the applicant without any delay, subject to the condition, If any, fixed by the trial judge.