Allahabad High Court
Ram Mahesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 13 May, 2014
Bench: Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
A.F.R.
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22570 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Mahesh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.S. Bais
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the records.
The petitioner had applied for release of his truck before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun but his application was rejected by the order dated 30.6.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun. The criminal revision preferred against such order was also dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Budaun. Hence by means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that both the aforesaid orders of the court below be set aside and his truck which is getting junked day by day standing unattended at the premises of the police station, be released.
Some background facts, in brief, are that a first information report was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. when it was found by Sub Inspector, S.O.G. Team of district Budaun that he was using two trucks with same registration number. Out of two trucks bearing the same registration number, one truck having valid documents was released in favour of the petitioner but the other was seized by the police and was kept inside the premises of police station.
The contention of the petitioner is that he had purchased a tanker in the year 1998 bearing Chasis no. 344073131890 and Engine No. 692DOI139098. As the said tanker became unfit to carry out the business, the petitioner surrendered its papers in the office of R.T.O., Bareilly on 30.6.2003. The case of the petitioner is that he had converted the tanker into a truck but as the papers of tanker had been surrendered, the said vehicle (tanker converted into truck) was not plying on the road. It was standing inside the house of the petitioner from where the police party has taken it away and has developed a false story implicating the petitioner in a false case. The petitioner had filed all the documents showing his ownership of both the vehicle but both the courts below have denied to release his truck without even considering that the petitioner was ready to produce the said vehicle before the police station concerned as and when desired by the courts.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the petition by contending that the courts below have passed a legal order which do not require any interference by this Court.
After hearing learned counsel from both the sides and after carefully perusing the relevant records, further more, keeping in view the well settled legal position, I am of the considered view that both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed for the following reasons:-
The petitioner had filed the document of R.T.O. Office, Bareilly dated 4.4.2011 showing his name as the owner of the tanker no. UGL 0692 bearing Chasis no. 344073131890 and Engine No. 692DOI139098 as that of the petitioner. So undisputedly the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle seized by the police, because a vehicle is identified by its engine number and chasis number and not by its registration number, which can easily be changed.
The police report of P.S. Ujhani, district Budaun filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun (annexure-5 on the record) clearly shows that police has admitted that both the trucks belong to the petitioner but as both were bearing the same registration number, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and one of his truck was seized.
The aforesaid criminal case filed against the petitioner is still pending and if it is found proved that the petitioner was plying both his trucks with the same registration number, he will face the consequences, but if his ownership on both the trucks was admitted to the police, there was no justification for keeping his truck in the premises of police station unattended causing its gradual decay and getting it junked day by day. The courts below were free to impose as many conditions on the petitioner as would have appeared appopriate to them but no useful purpose was going to served by keeping his truck remain in the police station while rejecting his release application.
It appears that both the courts below became oblivious of the well settled legal proposition, laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar vs. State of Gujarat {2003 (1) JIC 615 (SC) in which the Apex court has observed as under :-
"In police station premises seized vehicles are kept unattended and all those vehicles become junked day by day. There is no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period and the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders immediately for the release of those vehicles after taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time"
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited case has directed the Magistrate to follow the procedure provided u/s 451 and Section 457 Cr.P.C. regarding seized property by observing as under:-
"In our view, 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 or 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....."
"We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station in any case for not more than 15 days to one month."
The facts of the case in hand show that the truck of the petitioner was seized on 23.3.2011 and it is still standing in the premises of Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun unattended naturally, getting junked day by day, which situation is in clear violation of the law laid down by Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) case cited above.
For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 30.6.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun and the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun are hereby quashed.
The truck of the petitioner is released subject to condition that the petitioner will not ply it on road without its registration, insurance and permit etc. and without obtaining proper permission from the R.T.O. Office concerned.
Subject to aforesaid conditions the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to release the Truck No. UGL-0692, in favour of the petitioner, immediately, after taking appropriate bonds, security and undertaking to produce the said vehicles as and when required at any point of time by the court concerned.
Order Date :- 13.5.2014
S.B.
