Deepak Patel @ Guddu vs State Of U.P And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 5404 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 19.03.2021
 
Delivered on  18.05.2021
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3987 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Deepak Patel @ Guddu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar, Mrityunjay Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

1. Heard Sri Mrityunjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Seema Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. By means of this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated 06.02.2020 and 27.02.2020 passed by District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, under Section 14 (1) (a) of U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and the impugned order dated 16.01.2021 passed by Special Judge, Court No.3, Chitrakoot in Misc. Case No.275 of 2020 (Deepak Patel vs. State of U.P.), under Section 16 (2) of U.P. Gangster Act, which is originally arises out of Case Crime No.160 of 2020, whereby the application for release of the vehicle in question has been rejected. A prayer for release of the Vehicle No.UP96 K0622 in favour of the applicant has also been made.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is owner of Scorpio Vehicle bearing Registration No.UP96 K0622, Chechis No.MA1PA2TBKK2E10276, Engine No.TDK4E94316, which was purchased on 26.08.2019 and the same is hypothecated from Mahindra Finance Company. Prior to obtaining vehicle from Finance Company, the applicant deposited Rs.5,04,650/- from his account to Brij Raj Motors Pvt. on 24.07.2019. It is further alleged that on 13.12.2019 the Station Officer, Police Station Kotwali Karvi has given a report to District Magistrate, Chitrakoot for initiation a proceeding under Section 14 (1) of U.P. Gangster Act against the applicant stating therein that there are two cases pending against the applicant i.e. Case Crime No.407 of 2016 and Case Crime No.410 of 2016 at Police Station Kotwali Karvi, Chitrakoot, thereafter, on the basis of two cases, the applicant was falsely implicated by Station Officer at Police Station Kotwali Karvi in the year 2019 in Case Crime No.107 of 2019 under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster Act. After receiving the information from S.O. Kotwali Karvi, S.P. Chitrakoot send his report before District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, who vide order dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure No.3 to the application) passed the impugned order and attached the Scorpio vehicle and seized the same in police station concern. After seizing the vehicle in question, the applicant moved an application alongwith objection before the District Magistrate Chitrakoot on 27.02.2020, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No.4 to the application, who send a letter to Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot on 05.08.2020 and the then Station Officer of Police Station Kotwali Karvi has submitted his report before the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot on 26.08.2020 (Annexure No.5 to the application). The District Magistrate, Chitrakoot reaffirmed the order dated 06.02.2020 and rejected the objection filed by the applicant on 19.11.2020, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the application. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed an application under Section 16 (2) Cr.P.C. before Special Judge/Gangster Act, Chitrakoot on 05.12.2020 (Annexure No.7 to the application). Vide order dated 16.01.2021 (Annexure No.8 to the application), the Special Judge/Gangster Act, Chitrakoot has rejected the application, hence, this application.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant regularly deposited the installment of the vehicle in question to the finance company. Further contention is that the source from whom, the vehicle in question was purchased by the applicant, is explained by the applicant before the District Magistrate as well as before Special Judge, but without recording any finding with regards to the sale deed executed by the grandfather of the applicant, the impugned order has been passed, which is illegal, improper and against the material available on record. Further contention is that the vehicle in question was purchased by the applicant with valid source, therefore, the provision of Section 14 (1) will not be applicable in the present case. Further contention is that from perusal of order passed by District Magistrate, Chitrakoot as well as Special Judge, Chitrakoot, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicial minds as well as well as material available on record. Further contention is that during course of investigation, the investigating without collecting any cogent piece of evidence, directly link the applicant to the alleged crime, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Further contention is that unless the seized vehicle is released in favour of the applicant, he will be seriously prejudiced and there is no useful purpose to keep the vehicle during pendency of trial, hence, the applicant is ready to give the sureties for releasing the vehicle.

5. Opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle and has submitted that the District Magistrate as well as Special Court have rightly passed the impugned, which is just and proper and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. In the present case, the ownership of the said vehicle was not in dispute at all. The only dispute is that the source, from which the applicant purchased the vehicle in question explained by the applicant, has not been considered by the District Magistrate as well as Special Judge. Consequently, once the prayer before the court below was made for release of the said vehicle and the applicant has shown the source of income from which he purchased the vehicle in question, the Court should have considered only the question of entitlement of possession. For ready reference, Section 451 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

"451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," property" includes-

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence."

8. In the case of Badan Singh alias Baddo Vs. State of U.P. & others 2002 Crl. L.J. 1392, a learned Single Judge observed as follows:

"...... There must be nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him. His mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his property. In other words, what is necessary to find is whether his acquisition of property was as a result of commission of any offence enumerated in the Act being a member, leader or organizer of a gang. One might have committed several offences, but if the property acquired by him was with the aid of his earning from legal source, no action under S. 14 of the Act can be taken against him."

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai vs. State of Gujurat, 2003 (46) ACC 223, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stipulated guidelines for prompt interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with the commission of an offence. For ready reference paragraphs 14 & 15 of the aforesaid judgment 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."

10. The aforesaid view certainly support the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle detained at the police station itself.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present applicant u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off finally with the direction that the vehicle i.e. Scorpio No.UP96 K0622 shall be released in favour of the applicant 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 concerned.

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 chassis 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.

Order Date :- 18.5.2021

Ajeet

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.)