Vakil vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 872 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 872 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vakil vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 January, 2022

Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 34/2022

Vakil S/o Shri Fardeen Khan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near Kabristan, Hindalgol, Tehsil Bap, District Jodhpur. Power Of Attorney Holder Of Registered Owner Of The Vehicle Shri Panduram S/o Shri Sardarram Bhat, R/o Savaragaon, Tehsil Bap, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

18/01/2022

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition

under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 25.11.2021

passed by learned Special Judge, Electricity Cases, Jaisalmer in

Criminal Case No.133/2021 pertaining to FIR No.113/2021

registered at Police Station Sangar, District Jaisalmer for the

offences under Sections 136, 137 and 139 of the Electricity Act,

whereby the prayer to release the seized Bolero Pick-Up No.RJ-21-

GC-5066 on supurdaginama in favour of the petitioner, has been

rejected.

As per prosecution story, the offending vehicle was used for

electricity theft. After investigation, the police found that one

Pandu Ram was owner of the said vehicle and there is an

(2 of 4) [CRLR-34/2022]

agreement to sale dated 23.10.2021 between the petitioner and

said Pandu Ram for selling the said car to the petitioner.

The trial court has rejected the application filed under

Section 451 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking interim custody of

the subject vehicle on the ground of not submitting the application

by the registered owner of the car.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record as well the order impugned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for interim

custody of the subject vehicle submits that there is an agreement

to sale dated 23.10.2021 whereby one Pandu Ram sold out the

said car to the petitioner, and therefore, he is entitled for interim

custody of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

relied upon the judgment rendered n the case of Sunderbhai

Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10

SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the

vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police

station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the

order impugned passed by the trial court, prays for rejection of

the revision petition.

Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of the record,

in the considered opinion of this Court, the interim custody of the

vehicle alleged to be used in committing the offence of theft of

electricity cannot be denied on the ground that the owner of the

vehicle has not preferred the application specially when there was

agreement to sale between the petitioner and Pandu Ram, the

owner of the car. It is also settled legal proposition of law that

(3 of 4) [CRLR-34/2022]

interim custody of the vehicle cannot be denied on the ground that

it is liable to be confiscated, in case the offence is proved against

the accused. As per prosecution story, the vehicle was found in

possession of the petitioner and there is an agreement to sale of

the said car in favour of the petitioner.

Keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat

(supra), there is no reason to deny interim custody of the vehicle

to the owner or person entitled to get possession of the vehicle. If

the vehicle is allowed to be kept in the police station for an

indefinite period, then value of the vehicle shall be diminished

substantially and it may not remain in usable condition. In the

above circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be

allowed.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned

order dated 25.11.2021 passed by learned trial court is set aside

and Bolero Pick-UP car bearing registration No.RJ-21-GC-5066is

ordered to be released on 'supurdagi' in favour of the petitioner till

completion of the trial on the following conditions:-

(a) the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 3,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the vehicle aforesaid in the Court as and when required to do so.

(b) the petitioner shall get the vehicle aforesaid photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the Investigating Officer, to be kept on the file of the case.

(c) the personal bond 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, which is with full residential

(4 of 4) [CRLR-34/2022]

particulars of the sureties and the persons identifying them.

(d) the petitioner shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the vehicle aforesaid and not to lease it to anyone and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to make unidentifiable.