Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUNJI LAL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kunji Lal v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 15174 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5296 (8 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 54

Criminal Misc. Application No. 15174 of 2005.

Kunji Lal Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

This application has been filed challenging the order-dated 15.9.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 4, Aligarh, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to release the vehicle Bolaroo No. H.R. 66-2638 in favour of the applicant during pendency of the proceedings. The impugned order is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. The vehicle was taken into custody in respect of case crime No. 150 of 2005, under Sections 384, 170, 420 I.P.C. Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh. A perusal of the first information report shows that the accused impersonated as R.T.O. and started extracting illegal gratifications from the drivers of the various vehicles passing to and fro on the Mathura Road Bypass. The vehicle was taken into custody in connection with an offence, which was registered on 8.6.2005. The learned Magistrate has refused to release the vehicle for the reason that once again the applicant will start using it for illegal extraction of money and the offence, which is of a serious nature, will be repeated. It is not disputed that the applicant is registered owner of the vehicle and since the vehicle is standing unattended, no doubt it will be damaged, if it will allow to continue to stand at the police station.

The arrest of the applicant was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7497 of 2005 vide order dated 20.7.2005. I am not informed whether charge sheet has been filed or not but the registration certificate etc. has been brought on record.

After going through the impugned order and taking entire facts and circumstances into consideration, I am in agreement with the submission of the counsel for the applicant that the vehicle, which is lying unattended at the police station, will considerably be impaired. The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 2003, Supreme Court, 638, has ruled that the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the goods should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously so that it would serve fruitful purpose. The purpose behind this direction are enumerated herein below:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody.

3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

The procedure for disposal of seized articles and currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and Narcotics drugs suggested. Further Magistrate directed to pass appropriate orders immediately and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. The said object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.

In the instant case, the reason why the vehicle was not released by the Magistrate is well founded. It is correct that the vehicle can definitely be used for repeating the same offence. However, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), I direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh to release the vehicle Bolaroo No. H.R. 66-2638 in favour of the applicant in the event, a fresh application for release along with certified copy of this order is produced before the Magistrate. The vehicle shall be released on the following conditions:-

1. After taking an adequate security to the satisfaction of the court other than cash and bank guarantee.

2. An undertaking shall be filed by the applicant that the offence will not be repeated and in the event, he is found to be involved in subsequent offences relating to the vehicle Bolaroo No. H.R. 66-2638, the vehicle will be taken into custody by the police.

3. The applicant shall file an undertaking before the learned Magistrate that he will appear on every alternate month till the conclusion of the trial and apprise the court regarding whereabouts of the vehicle. In the event, any of these conditions are violated, this order shall automatically stand vacated.

With these observations, this application is finally disposed of.

Dt/-18.10.2005.

Rmk.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.