Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Junwal vs State Of U.P. on 8 May, 2015
Bench: Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 22 AFR
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1183 of 2013
Revisionist :- Ramesh Chandra Junwal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
By means of the instant revision, the order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Ballia, in Case No.4610 of 2012, State Vs. Amar Singh, arising out of Case Crime No.296 of 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 60 Excise Act, Police Station Bansdeeh Road, District Ballia has been challenged whereby the prayer for release of the vehicle bearing number M.P.13 GA/1842 has been refused.
Before proceedings further with the case, it would be appropriate to give a brief sketch of the facts of this case as discernible from the record. On 21.10.2012 around 9:40 p.m., the complainant Arun Kumar Dubey, S.H.O., Police Station Bansdeeh Road, District Ballia, seized the vehicle bearing number M.P.13 GA/1842 and recovered 625 boxes containing 30000 bottles of liquor, arresting the four persons. The first information report was lodged very same day at 23:45 hours at the aforesaid police station at Case Crime No.296 of 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 60 Excise Act.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the matter was investigated into and charge sheet was filed after completion of the investigation. During course of the proceedings, the revisionist moved an application for release of the aforesaid vehicle claiming himself to be owner of the vehicle but the prayer was erroneously refused.
Learned counsel further added that the revisionist is not an accused in this case and the aforesaid seized vehicle has been unnecessarily detained since 21.10.2012 at the concerned police station and there is every possibility that the vehicle will be rusted out, if not released.
Learned AGA has submitted that confiscation proceeding for the vehicle is underway before the District Magistrate, Ballia which has been accepted by the learned counsel for the revisionist by filing supplementary affidavit. Questionnaire has been annexed as annexure no.SA-I to the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant revision whereby it has been brought to the notice of this Court that confiscation proceedings are pending, as yet.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that so far as his personal information is concerned, things have not yet been concluded at the end of the District Magistrate, Ballia.
At this stage, a query was made to the learned AGA as to what purpose will be served, if the vehicle in question is allowed to remain detained at the concerned police station. Learned AGA is kept silent.
At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist laid stress to the effect that pendency of proceeding before the District Magistrate will not divest the learned lower court of its power to pass orders for release of the vehicle. Clear cut guidelines have been issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (46) ACC 223 (SC) and Virendra Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2008 (60) ACC 481.
In view of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Rama Shankar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (1) ACR 907 and has submitted that elaborate and specific guidelines have been given to the lower court for release of the vehicle seized and detained as such in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (46) ACC 223 (SC) and Virendra Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2008 (60) ACC 481.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has issued and specific categorical guidelines for release of the vehicle. Apart from above power for release of vehicles can be well exercised after following procedure prescribed under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is possessing all the relevant papers of the vehicle in question, if an opportunity is given, he will produce the same before the learned lower court as and when so directed.
Considered the above submissions and also the fact that the revisionist is not an accused in this case. There were four accused persons named in the first information report namely Amar Singh, Panna Lal Yadav, Tarkeshwar Jaiswal and Pinku Singh. Since the revisionist claims to be the owner of the vehicle in question and is not an accused, no useful purpose will be served in getting the vehicle unnecessarily detained at the police station concerned. It was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to have taken into consideration the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. Merely because confiscation proceedings are underway, that alone will not justify rejection of the release application so moved by the revisionist.
In this context, considering the explicit guidelines laid and issued in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Virendra Pal Singh (supra), I find it just and appropriate to direct the court below to consider the release application afresh keeping in view that the power for release of the vehicle can be exercised even under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate and pendency of confiscation proceedings alone will be no bar for passing the order for release of the vehicle provided the revisionist produces all the relevant papers of the vehicle in question and he is ready to comply with other terms and conditions so imposed on him by the court.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Ballia, in Case No.4610 of 2012, State Vs. Amar Singh, arising out of Case Crime No.296 of 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 60 Excise Act, Police Station Bansdeeh Road, District Ballia, is set aside with direction to the learned Magistrate that he will consider and dispose of the matter qua release of the vehicle afresh in the light of the observation made hereinabove, preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed.
Office is directed to send back lower court record forthwith.
Order Date :- 8.5.2015
rkg
