Orissa High Court
Durga Prasad Tandi vs State Of Odisha on 13 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.54 of 2021
Durga Prasad Tandi .... Petitioner
Mr. Bikram Chandra Ghadei, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC for State
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
12.05.2022
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State.
3. The present revision application has been filed by the
Petitioner challenging the order dated 23.12.2020, passed by the
J.M.F.C., Khariar, in Crl. Misc. Case No.14 of 2020, arising out of
C.T. No.09 of 2020, in connection with of Khariar P.S. Case No.8 of
2020, rejecting the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 457
of Cr.P.C. to release the vehicle of the present Petitioner, i.e.
Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No.CG-13C-1698 bearing
Chassis No.MAITA2BSC52M90866 and Engine No.BS54N73076
in his favour.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is
the registered owner of the Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration
// 2 //
No.CG-13C-1698. He further submits that the vehicle has been used
for the purpose of robbery from the trucks without knowledge and
consent and that after its seizure, the condition of the vehicle is
being deteriorated day by day due to its exposure to sun and rain. It
is further submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that similar
matter has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Ashis Ranjan Mohanty (Adv.) vs. State of Odisha and
others, reported in 2022 (I) OLR-555, wherein this Court has issued
specific directions which are to be carried out by the concerned
courts and police stations for release of the vehicle in favour of the
person from whom the vehicle was seized.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that
as the alleged Mahindra Scorpio was used for robbery in the truck
and the trial of the case has not yet been completed, as such, he
prays to reject the revision petition filed by the Petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submission advanced by the respective parties as well as the case
decided by this Court in the case of Ashis Ranjan Mohanty (Adv.)
(supra), this Court is of the considered view that no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the seized vehicle in the custody of the
Investigating Agency exposing the same to extreme conditions of
sun and rain under the open sky. Further, a perusal of the impugned
order reveals that the learned court below while rejecting the
application has not taken into consideration the mandate of this
Court in Ashis Rnajan Mohanty (Adv.) (supra).
// 3 //
7. Accordingly, the CRLREV is allowed by setting aside the
order dated 23.12.2020, passed by the J.M.F.C., Khariar, in Crl.
Misc. Case No.14 of 2020, arising out of C.T. No.09 of 2020, in
connection with of Khariar P.S. Case No.8 of 2020 and the matter is
remanded back with a direction to the trial court to reconsider the
matter of the Petitioner for release of the vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio
bearing Registration No.CG-13C-1698) in the terms of the judgment
cited supra. It is further directed that in the event of release of the
vehicle, an undertaking shall also be obtained to the effect that he
shall not use the vehicle for any illegal activity and produce the same
as and when the court requires the same for the purpose of trial.
8. CRLREV is accordingly allowed.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper
application.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
U.K.Sahoo
