Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 6 August, 2024
Author: Malasri Nandi
Bench: Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010145442024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./844/2024
ROUSAN ALI AND ANR
S/O JALIL ALI, R/O VILL- SARPARA, P.O.-SARPARA, P.S.-PALASBARI, DIST-
KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781122
2: SAHARUL ALI
S/O MAKBUL ALI
R/O VILL- TENGAGAON
P.O.-AMGURI
P.S.-SARBHOG
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN CODE-78131
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. U HAZARIKA,MR H DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 06.08.2024
Heard Ms. P. Som, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.J. Baruah,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
Page No.# 2/5
2. The petitioners have preferred this application u/ss 482/397/401 CrPC for
quashing the impugned order dated 14/06/2024, passed by the learned JMFC
Rangia, Kamrup in connection with Baihata Chariali PS case No. 120/2024 u/ss
379/411 IPC read with section 41 of Assam Forest Regulation Act.
3. The background of the case is that 03/05/2024, an FIR has been lodged
before the officer-in-charge of Baihata Police Station stating inter alia that on
the strength of secret information, two vehicles bearing No. AS-26AC-1409 and
AS-01QC-4622 have been intercepted at Bhomlahati and apprehended the FIR
name accused persons. During search, illegal sawed woods suspected to be
stolen from forest reserve, have been recovered from the aforesaid trucks.
Accordingly, the recovered woods and trucks were seized as per seizure list.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No. 1
is the driver cum owner of the vehicle AS-26AC-1409 and the petitioner No. 2 is
the driver cum owner of the other vehicle AS-01QC-4622. It is also submitted
that on the date of incident, the present petitioners were also arrested.
Subsequently, they were released on bail.
5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
earlier they approached before the trial court seeking Zimma of their respective
vehicles, but the prayer of the petitioners was rejected by the trial court vide
order dated 14/06/2024.
6. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while
rejecting the prayer of Zimma of the aforesaid vehicles, the learned trial court
has misinterpreted the order passed by this court in Criminal Petition No.
284/2022 dated 02/03/2022. In the said Judgment, this court has clearly stated
in para 45 as follows -
Page No.# 3/5
"In view of the reason stated above, we answer the reference by
holding that at the investigation stage, seized articles cannot be
released by a court u/s 451/Cr.PC. However, u/s 457 Cr.PC the
criminal court has jurisdiction to give custody of seized property/
articles at the stage of investigation, when those seized property are
not produced before the court."
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case in hand,
the seized vehicles were produced before the court vide MR No.
132/2023. In view of the aforesaid observation it is clear that u/s
457 Cr.PC, the criminal court has jurisdiction to give zimma of the
seized articles.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the
petitioners are the absolute owners of the aforesaid two vehicles which were
seized in connection with Baihati Chariali PS Case No. 120/2024 and therefore,
keeping the vehicle in the custody of the investigating authority may not be
necessary for the purpose of investigation of the case.
8. Learned counsel has referred the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC
283. In the said case, it has been held that the seized article should not be kept
for long time in the police station and the Magistrate would take immediate
action for considering the powers u/s 451 and 457 Cr.PC.
9. In response, learned Additional PP has produced the case diary along with
the report of the investigating officer. It is submitted that as per police report
both the petitioners did not produce any relevant documents regarding
ownership of the seized trucks before the I.O. However, the seized trucks are no
Page No.# 4/5
more required for the purpose of further investigation of the case.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
case diary, it reveals that as per seizure list, respective vehicles were seized
from the possession of the present petitioners. As per report of the I.O, as the
relevant documents of the vehicles are not available with the I.O, it cannot be
ascertained as to the actual owners of the seized trucks. As it is reported by the
I.O that the seized trucks are no more required for further investigation of the
case, this court does not find any reasonable ground to detain the seized
vehicles in the Police Station.
11. In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Sundarbhai
Ambalal Desai (Supra), it is desirable that the claim of the petitioners for interim
zimma of seized vehicles is to be settled expeditiously and judiciously so as to
prevent any damage to the vehicles and loss to the owners. Therefore, it is
provided that the learned Magistrate shall decide the matter regarding
ownership of the vehicles and release the same to interim zimma as per
provision of law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order.
12. In order to enable the learned Magistrate to decide the claim of ownership
of the vehicles afresh, as per procedure, the petitioners shall file appropriate
petition supported by relevant documents in original.
With the above observations, the criminal petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Page No.# 5/5
Comparing Assistant
