Allahabad High Court
Vinay Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 March, 2021
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 251 of 2021
Revisionist :- Vinay Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shri Ram (Rawat),Indra Deo Mishra,Shushil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
This revision is against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Allahabad in Case Crime No.159 of 2020, under Sections 379, 411 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 at Police Station Khiri, District Prayagraj.
The revisionist Vijay Singh is a farmer and is the owner of Tractor having registration no.UP-70 FK-6939 on 25.9.2020 i.e. before four days of the incidence and the said Tractor was also insured from Bazaz Allianz. The said vehicle was seized under Section 379 & 411 IPC and 4/21 Mines and Minerals Act by the police on the ground that it was used in loading of illegal mining sand. Consequently, the revisionist filed a release application on 22.10.2020 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Allahabad on the ground that he is owner of the vehicle which has been seized by the police.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. Before seizing the vehicle in question, the police has not given the quantity of sand because it was in low quantity. The revisionist has not dug out the sand from the bed of river as no digging spade/instrument or any loading instrument was recovered from the tractor, hence, no case under Sections 379 and 411 IPC and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act is made out against the revisionist. While passing the impugned order, the court below has not properly appreciated the material on record.It is further contented that unless the seized vehicle is released in favour of the petitioner, he will be seriously prejudiced and there is no useful purpose to keep the vehicle during pendency of trial.
I have gone through the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that it is not in consonance with the requirement of Section 457 Cr. P.C. which entails that the court shall determine the question of entitlement of possession under that section. In this case it is not in dispute that the revisionist was entitled to possession of the aforesaid vehicle. The ownership of the said vehicle was not in dispute at all. Consequently, once the prayer before the court below was made for release of the said vehicle, the Court should have considered only the question of entitlement of possession. The learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of apex court reported in 2003 (46) ACC 223 Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai v. State of Gujrat. He relied upon para 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced below:
"14. In our view, whatever be the situation. It is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police stations 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 returns of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
15. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possessions of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."
The aforesaid view certainly support the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle detained at the police station itself. In view of the aforesaid discussion, since the impugned order is against the mandate of law as enshrined under Section 457 Cr. P.C. as well as against the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the vehicle i.e. Tractor No.UP-70 FK-6939 shall be released in favour of the revisionist immediately subject to the following conditions:-
1. He shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the concerned Police Station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof.
2. He shall execute a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
3. He shall keep the vehicle insured at all times till the conclusion of the trial and produce the Insurance Certificate before the Trial Court as and when required; He must satisfy the Court that he is the registered owner of the vehicle.
4. He shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chasis number of the vehicle.
5. He shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or before such other authorities as the Court may direct.
6. He will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case.
7. He shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence.
With the aforesaid directions, the present revision stands disposed off finally.
Order Date :- 26.3.2021
Ajeet
