Allahabad High Court
Danish Qureshi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20849 of 2022
Applicant :- Danish Qureshi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Jeet Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material available on record.
By this application, the applicant has made a prayer to quash the order dated 27.6.2022 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 157 of 2022 (Danish Qureshi Vs. State), under section 5(A) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, order dated 28.03.2022 passed by Addl. District Magistrate (Admin) Meerut and order dated 17.11.2021 passed by A.C.J.M.,Court No. 2, Meerut by which the release application of the vehicle of applicant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the owner of Vehicle No. U.P. 12 BT 5642 in favour the applicant which has been confiscated and seized by the police. Consequently, the applicant filed a release application on 17.11.2022 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut to release the said vehicle and the said application was rejected by the A.C.J.M. Against which the applicant filed a revision against the said order and the same was also rejected, hence, this application has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the vehicle remain with the opposite parties, the condition of the vehicle will be deteriorated day by day and from time to time. He has further submitted that the applicant is agreeable to furnish the security or appropriate bond in case of release of vehicle and he also undertakes to produce the property being vehicle as and when it is required by the court below. He has further submitted 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 in custody.
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 applicant 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 applicant 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. Para 14 and 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."
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.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present application is disposed off finally with the direction that the vehicle No. U.P. 12 BT 5642 shall be released in favour of the applicant immediately subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Applicant shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the concerned Police Station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof.
(ii) Applicant shall execute a bond as per market value of the vehicle with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
(iii) Applicant 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.
(iv) Applicant shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle.
(v) Applicant shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or before such other authorities as the Court may direct.
(vi) Applicant will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case.
(vii) Applicant shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence.
Order Date :- 31.10.2022
RPD
