Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prahald Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36558) on 3 September, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:36558]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5712/2024
Prahald Singh S/o Jai Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Mataji Ka
Kheda, P.s. Kapasan, Dist. Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
03/09/2024
1. Under challenge before this Court is an order dated
27.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, in Criminal Revision No.11/2024,
vide which revision petition was dismissed and affirmed the order
dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kapasan, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Case
No.122/2024 pertaining to FIR No.347/2023, dated 31.10.2023
under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, registered at Police
Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh. Vide impugned order,
release of the vehicle in question (MAHINDRA THAR JEEP) bearing
registration No.RJ-06-UA-7810, has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a
conceded case of the department that the petitioner had a valid
excise licence for transportation of the liquor in an authorized
vehicle as per the details mentioned in the licence. However, on
[2024:RJ-JD:36558] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5712/2024]
the fateful day, the authorized vehicle had a breakdown while it
was being driven alongwith the cartons of the liquor. Owing to the
same, in emergency, an alternative vehicle was deployed for the
transportation.
2.1 He further contends that there was no intent to commit any
violation. Due to the circumstances beyond the control of the
petitioner and to avoid traffic emergency on the road, the needful
was done so as not to cause any public inconvenience.
2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he is the
owner of the vehicle in question. Same was seized by the Police
Officers. Petitioner being the owner of the vehicle is best entitled
to get it back on supurdari.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the instant criminal Misc.
petition on the ground that vehicle is a case property.
4. Vehicle was impounded on 31.10.2023 and ever-since parked
in police custody and needless to say it is deteriorating by each
passing day and would turn into a complete junk by the time trial
is concluded.
5. Reference may be had to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the order
dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.2005/2022 [SLP (Crl.) No.7280/2022] titled as
Sainaba Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr., wherein, the vehicle
involved in a crime under NDPS Act was directed to be released on
terms and conditions to be determined by the Special Court. In
view thereof, the instant Petition is also allowed. Adopting the
same reasoning as assigned in the judgment, ibid, this Court
[2024:RJ-JD:36558] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5712/2024]
deems it just and appropriate to release the vehicle in question in
favour of the petitioner on interim custody till conclusion of the
trial provided he furnishes a Supurdarinama and surety of like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned court below. It is
expected of the learned trial court to verify the ownership
documents of the vehicle in question before releasing the same on
Supurdarinama in favour of the owner.
(ARUN MONGA),J
58-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
