Allahabad High Court
Azad Kumari vs State Of U.P. on 26 March, 2021
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 388 of 2021
Revisionist :- Azad Kumari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Jadu Nandan Yadav,Arimardan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
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 13.1.2021 and 17.12.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj in Case No.1333 of 2020 (State vs. Azad KUmari) under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act at Police Station Indargarh, District Kannauj.
The revisionist Azad Kumari is the owner of Tractor having registration No.UP-75 AD 3792. The said tractor was purchased for agricultural purpose. On 8.10.2020 a challani report was submitted by Transport Department under Section 194 (1) of Motor Vehicle Act, Section 19 r/w 24 U.P. M.V. Taxation Act, Section 112 r/w 183 (1), Sections 130, 158, 39 (1) r/w 192 and Sections 177 & 130 of Motor Vehicle Act. After challan of the Tractor, the revisionist moved an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, who vide order dated 17.12.2020 rejected the application of the revisionist. After rejection of application, the revisionist confessed the offence before the court below on 7.1.2021 and deposited the entire penalty amount of Rs.44,750/ in the court below. On 11.1.2021, the revisionist moved another application for release of the tractor, which was also rejected by order dated 13.1.2021 on the ground that a case crime no.177 of 2020 at police station Indargarh, District Kannauj has been registered against the deponent (husband of revisionist) in which the vehicle has been shown a case property.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that all papers of the vehicle are complete and the revisionist has also deposited the entire amount of penalty in pursuance of the order dated 7.1.2021. There was no occasion for the court below to reject the release applications. While passing the impugned order, the court below has not properly appreciated the material on record. Further submission is 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.
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-75 AD 3792 shall be released in favour of the revisionist immediately subject to the following conditions:-
1. She shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the concerned Police Station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof.
2. She shall execute a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
3. She 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. She shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chasis number of the vehicle.
5. She shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or before such other authorities as the Court may direct.
6. She will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case.
7. She 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
