Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11420 of 2008 Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- K.K. Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA
and perused the record.
This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing the order dated 08.04.2008 passed by
the IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal
Revision No. 35 of 2004 (Ram Kumar Gupta v State of U.P.)
whereby the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the applicant’s
revision and confirmed the order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime No. 13 of
2008 (State v Ram Milan & others), under sections 364, 302, 201
and 120-B IPC, P.S. Kakvan, District Kanpur Dehat.
It appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the
applicant’s application for release of his vehicle UP 74-B/2216 on
the ground that the vehicle was used for the commission of the
offences, under the aforesaid sections. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge dismissed the revision on the ground that no
case for interference was made out.
It was not disputed before me that the applicant is the registered
owner of the aforesaid vehicle.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
aforesaid vehicle was no doubt, as per the allegations made in
the charge sheet, involved in committing the aforesaid offences
but the applicant is neither an accused nor he was in any way
involved in the commission of the offences. In fact the aforesaid
vehicle was being driven by the applicant’s driver and the
applicant had no knowledge that the vehicle was used by him for
committing the aforesaid offences.
It was next submitted that in view of the principles of law
propounded in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v State
of Gujrat [2003 AIR Supreme Court 638] it was not proper on
the part of the courts below to refuse the handing over of the
vehicle in favour of the applicant. It was not desirable to keep the
vehicle at the Police Station. Atmost the courts below would have
asked for adequate security for ensuring the production of the
vehicle as and when required. Instead of doing so, the courts
below rejected the release application on altogether unwarranted
grounds.
In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Apex
Court has dealt with the similar matter and propounded the
following principles of law:
“The powers under S. 451 CrPC should be exercised
expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various
purposes, namely :-
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 Supreme Court further observed:
………
In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to
keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long
period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as
well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required
at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of
applications for return of such vehicles.
It was also observed:
……..
“We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would
take immediate action for seeing that powers under section
451 Cr.PC are properly and promptly exercised 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. This
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 in seeing that the rules
framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are
implemented properly. ”
Keeping in view the aforesaid principles and also the fact that the
applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and is not an
accused in the case, I consider it just and expedient to direct the
concerned Magistrate to release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of
the applicant.
The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated
08.04.2008 (annexure 5) and 25.02.2008 (annexure) are
quashed. The aforesaid vehicle is directed to be released in
favour of the applicant on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat and also subject to the
condition that the applicant will keep the vehicle safely and
produce the same as and when required by the court during the
trial and will not transfer the same without prior permission of the
trial court.
Order Date :- 2.8.2010
shailesh