Allahabad High Court
Vijai Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Om Prakash Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116305
Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2200 of 2022
Revisionist :- Vijai Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Arvind Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 5.5.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj in Misc. Case Crime No.Nil of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Brijesh Yadav) under section 21 (4) of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act alongwith 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj and also pleased to direct the Court below to allow the release application and release the revisionist's vehicle bearing Truck No. UP 56 AT 2295. On the basis of law laid down in Vidhyanand Yadav vs. State of U.P., Criminal Revision No.1629 of 2021.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is the owner of the said truck No. UP 56 AT 2295, the registration certificate has been filed and said vehicle has been hypotheticated by Axis Bank Limited. The said vehicle was seized by the Mining Officer and given in the custody of the police. The FIR has also been lodged by the police in this case as Case Crime No.65 of 2022, P.S. Paniyara, District Maharajganj, whereas in such cases, the Court cannot take cognizance on the basis of FIR, only complaint is mandatory. The date of incident is 23.11.2021 and FIR of this case has been lodged with delay of five months i.e.16.4.2022, without any plausible explanation. On 15.01.2022, C.J.M. has passed order to deposit dues of various debts.
Learned counsel for the revisionist also placed reliance the order of this Court dated 8.6.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.2307 of 2022 (Sikandar vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) in which truck was released on the similar facts and it is also submitted that condition of the vehicle will be deteriorated day by day and from time to time and the revisionist is ready to furnish the security or appropriate bond in case of release of vehicle and no useful purpose will be served to keep the vehicle in custody of the police and vehicle shall be ruined.
I have gone through the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the revisionist also placed reliance on Sunder Bhai Amba Lal Desai vs. State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) ACC 223. He also 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.
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. The ownership of the vehicle is not disputed. The said vehicle is detained in the Police Station for about one and half year. Now a days, there seems a show-room of vehicles in front of each Police Station in Uttar Pradesh.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision is disposed of finally with the direction that the vehicle i.e. Truck No. UP 56 AT 2295 shall be released in favour of the revisionist immediately subject to the following conditions :-
(i) Revisionist shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the concerned Police Station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof.
(ii) Revisionist 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) Revisionist 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) Revisionist shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle.
(v) Revisionist shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or before such other authorities as the Court may direct.
(vi) Revisionist will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case.
(vii) Revisionist shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence.
(viii) Revisionist shall give an undertaking before the Mining Department, ARTO and Sales Tax to pay entire dues and penalty within six months from the date of release of said vehicle, in case of default, the dues amount shall be recovered from the revisionist as arrears of land Revenue by the Competent Authority.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
Monika
