Allahabad High Court
Babblu vs State Of U.P. on 19 July, 2011
Bench: Rajesh Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3433 of 2010
Petitioner :- Babblu
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashutosh,Mohd. Shabbir
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad whereby the court has refused to release the vehicle in favour of the revisionist Babloo.
In brief, the facts of the case are that on 31.10.2009 , the Inspector Jagdish Singh of Railway Protection Force alongwith other police personnels, spotted a Car in which two persons were sitting. The information was that a third person was likely to come to these two persons to hand over Heroin. The police waited and at about 2.50 p.m., the third man arrived and occupied the car. Thereafter, the third man took out three bags and handed over one bag each to the two persons already sitting in the Car. These three persons were arrested by the police.From the possession of Shahid Khan, 400 gms. of Heroin, from the possession of Javed 300 gms. of Heroin and from the possession of Pankaj Sharma, 300 gms. of Heroin was recovered. Interalia the police also seized the Santro Car. It appears that after completing the investigation,charge-sheet was submitted against all the three accused and their cases were committed to the Court of Sessions, which were ultimately received in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court -1, Moradabad for disposal.
It appears from the record that the present revisionist Babloo moved an application before the Court that he is the registered Lower owner of the said Car and after its seizure, the car is lying at the police station and is being rendered a junk day by day. He prayed for the release of the Car in his favour.
The said application for the release of the car was rejected by the Court by passing the impugned order dated 16.7.2010.
In revision, I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and his application for the release of the vehicle has been rejected by the trial court without any sufficient ground and without considering the law laid down by Hon. the Apex Court on the said subject. His contention is that the revisionist-applicant is neither an accused in the case nor any charge-sheet has been filed against him. His further contention is that if the vehicle is released in his favour, he will not dispose it of until the conclusion of the trial court and will produce the same as and when required by the Court or any other authority.
The learned A.G.A. on the other hand argued that since the Car has been used in the commission of a heinous crime, such as trafficking in the contraband article, the Court concerned has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the revisionist and no interference is required by this Court in that order. It was also argued that the vehicle may require its production in the Court at the time of recording of prosecution evidence and if the vehicle is released infavour of the revisionist, its non production on the date fixed may delay the disposal of the case.
I have considered over the respective arguments.
There is no dispute that the revisionist Babloo is the registered owner of the said Car No. UK-06 M-5300 . It is also not in dispute that after its seizure, on 31.10.2009 the Car is lying at the police station. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.7.2010 clearly indicates that the lower court was of the view that in the light of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court as well as of the Apex Court, the vehicles should not be kept at the police station for an indefinite period and should be released infavour of the registered owner after imposing certain conditions but still the lower court rejected the application for the release of the vehicle merely on the ground that one Kg. Heroin has been recovered from the vehicle.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed ignoring the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is to be noted that the Heroin was not recovered from the vehicle itself. The contention of the prosecution is that two persons were already sitting in the Car and when a third man arrived there, he took out three bags and handed over one bag to each of the two persons already sitting in the Car. Thus, it cannot be said that the Car was being used for transportation of contraband article.Even otherwise, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, 2003(46), A.C.C. 223 is important wherein a reference has also been made to another judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court in Smt.Basavva Kon Dyamangouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore and another, 1977 (14) A.C.C., 220.
In this judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that the object of the Code of of the Criminal Procedure seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly, should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. The Court further observed that in a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, the Court exercises over all control on the actions of the police officers in every case.
In the later part of the judgment, Hon. Apex Court observed, ' it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the saide vehicle, if required at any point of time'. The Hon'ble Apex Court went on to say to this extent that this could be done pending hearing on applications for return of such vehicles.
In view of the entire discussions made above, I am satisfied that the order impugned in this revision, is not in accordance with Law. The vehicle, which is lying at the police station will be rendered a junk and its value shall diminish day by day. If the vehicle is released infavour of the revisionist then it will remain in running condition and may be produced by him whenever required by the Court.
The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.7.2010 is set aside.
The Car bearing registration No. UK-06 M-5300 shall be released infavour of revisionist Babloo on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each for Rs. one lakh in the Court of Fast Track Court -1,Moradabad to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The revisionist shall undertake that the vehicle shall not be disposed of by him during the pendency of the Trial and will be produced before the Court or any other authority whenever required to produce the same. The revisionist shall further undertake that he will not change the present condition of the vehicle and shall not alienate it in any manner till the case is decided in the lower court.
Order Date :- 19.7.2011
n.u.
