1. Heard Mr. R.N. Shukla for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent and perused the record.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA, the matter is being finally disposed of.
3. This is a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in the crime no. 370/2009, under sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC, police station R.C. Mission, district Shahjahanpur, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate released the vehicle no. UP-32/ATC-1249 in favour of the petitioner M/S Zoom Movers Proprietary on certain conditions and one of the conditions, which has been impugned in this petition, was that the registered owner of the vehicle shall not transfer the vehicle and keep the same in the safe custody and produce whenever required by the courts. This condition, according to the petitioner, was stringent and unwarranted in law, therefore, liable to be struck down.
4. Mr. R.N. Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid case is an accidental case in which the petitioner's driver has died. It was next submitted that in accidental matters vehicles are not produced in the court and only mechanical examination of the vehicle is done so as to find out any mechanical or technical defect in the vehicle as also the damage, if any, caused to the vehicle in the accident. Mr. Shukla further submitted that in the present case the mechanical examination has been done and the authority, who did the mechanical examination, has noted down the mechanical condition of the vehicle and damages, if any, caused to the vehicle, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in imposing the aforesaid stringent condition. If the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that the condition of the vehicle after the accident was necessarily required to be proved during the trial, he should have directed for having photographs of the vehicle from various angles and thereafter he should have released the vehicle. The petitioner can not be asked to keep the vehicle in the damaged condition so long as trial is not concluded. Mr. Shukla further submitted that the Apex Court has already formulated certain guide lines in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should have followed the directions of the Apex Court in the said case while imposing the conditions.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle and there is no dispute to this extent. It is a matter of common practice that the accidental vehicles are not produced during the trial. Ordinarily the investigating officer gets the vehicle examined from a technical person, who prepares a report regarding the physical condition of the vehicle and mechanical defect if any, and the memo so prepared, is ordinarily used as evidence during the trial. If a vehicle involved in an accident suffers any damage and can not ply on road without removal of the damage, the owner of the vehicle can not be asked to wait for the conclusion of the trial and keep the vehicle in the damaged condition and produce the same during the trial. Therefore, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to direct for having photographs of the vehicle prepared from various angles so that identity of the vehicle as well as damages caused to the vehicle may come in the photographs. The purpose would be served if the photographs with negatives alongwith the report of the technical inspection of the vehicle are produced during the trial. In this view of the matter, the condition directing the petitioner not to dispose of the vehicle and keep the vehicle safely appears to be unwarranted in law. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), the Apex Court has also formulated the principles of taking of photographs of the seized vehicle and preparation of its panchnama before the release. Therefore the condition imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate prohibiting the petitioner from transferring the vehicle or disposing of the same, appear to be unwarranted in law.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur stands modified accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.9.2010 RKSh