Rajasthan High Court
Fakru S/O Simmu vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 January, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5514/2020
Fakru S/o Simmu, R/o Gandhaula, Tehsil Tijara Distt. Alwar Raj.
----Petitioner/Supurddar
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manjeet Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashan Sharma, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
30/01/2021
This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed against the order
dated 28.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.1, Tijara, District Alwar whereby, the revision petition filed by
the petitioner against the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by
Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwadi District Alwar rejecting petitioner's
application for release of vehicle, has been dismissed.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there is no statutory bar under the provisions of
the Explosives Act, 1884 (for brevity "the Act of 1884") on the
jurisdiction of the Judicial Court for releasing the vehicle. He
submitted that Section 10 of the Act of 1884 nowhere provides
forfeiture of the vehicle allegedly used in commission of the
offence under the Act. He submitted that even the Investigating
Agency has submitted its no objection with the learned Judicial
Magistrate for release of the vehicle in his favour. Relying on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5514/2020]
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10
SCC 290, he prayed that the vehicle in question be released in his
favour.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
In the entire scheme of the Act of 1884 or under the
Explosive Substances Act 1908, there is no provision which bars
jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate to release the vehicle
allegedly used in commission of offence. Section 10 of the Act of
1884 does not speak of forfeiture of the vehicle allegedly used in
commission of the offence and even otherwise also, it is settled
law that merely because a vehicle is liable to be confiscated after
trial of the case, it is no ground to deny release of the vehicle. In
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in
case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), this Court deems it
just and proper to allow this criminal miscellaneous petition.
The order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.1, Tijara, District Alwar in Criminal Revision
No.25/2020 is quashed and set aside. The vehicle, Pik-up bearing
registration No.RJ-40 GA 3618 is directed to be released in favour
of the petitioner on 'supurdginama' on his producing original
registration certificate and on satisfying following conditions:-
(1) He furnishes a person bond in the sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.2,50,000/- each
to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to
produce the vehicle in question in the Court as and
when required to do so.
(2) He shall get the vehicle in question photographed
showing the registration number as well as the
chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5514/2020]
the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept
on the file of the case.
(3) The personal bonds of the petitioner and bonds of
sureties shall carry the photographs of the petitioner
and his sureties and the bond of sureties shall further
carry the photographs of persons identifying them
before the Court with full residential particulars of the
sureties and the persons identifying them.
(4) The petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the
ownership of the vehicle in question and not to lease it
to any one and not to make or allow any changes in it
to be made so as to make unidentifiable.
With the aforesaid directions, the criminal miscellaneous
petition is allowed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/46
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
