Back
2003 Supreme(Bom) 167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Kharche S.T., J.
Milind Prabhakar Rokade .... Applicant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
Criminal Application Nos. 1598 1678 of 1999, decided on 10-2-2003.
Advocates appeared :
Mrs. B.P. Maldhure in Cri.Appln. No. 1598/1999, for applicant in Cri.Appl. No. 1678/1999, for respondent No. 2.
T.R. Kankale, A.P.P. in Cri.Appln. Nos. 1598 1678/1999, for respondent No. 1.
S.A. Bramhe in Cri.Appln. No. 1598/1999, for respondent No. 2 in Cri.Appl. No. 1678/1999, for applicant.
The interim custody of a motor vehicle can be given pending a criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized the need for prompt and judicious exercise of the powers under section 451 of the Code. The possession of the accused is a relevant factor in determining the interim custody.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 451, 457 - The court referred to sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deal with the custody and disposal of property pending trial. Section 451 empowers the court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property, including selling or otherwise disposing of it. Section 457 deals with the procedure to be followed by the police upon seizure of property and allows the magistrate to make orders regarding the disposal or delivery of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the interim custody of a Hero Honda motorcycle pending a criminal prosecution. The motorcycle was claimed by both the complainant and the accused. The lower courts rejected the applications for custody by both parties. The main issue is whether the interim custody of the motor vehicle can be given pending the criminal prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the arguments of both parties and examined the evidence. It referred to sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deal with the custody and disposal of property pending trial. The court also referred to a recent Supreme Court decision that emphasized the need for prompt and judicious exercise of the powers under section 451. The court concluded that the impugned orders passed by the lower courts cannot be sustained in law and that the accused, Milind, is entitled to the interim custody of the motorcycle on execution of supratnama. The court ordered the return of the motorcycle to Milind, with certain conditions and safeguards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interim custody of a motor vehicle can be given pending a criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized the need for prompt and judicious exercise of the powers under section 451 of the Code. The court also highlighted the importance of proper custody and disposal of seized property to prevent decay and ensure the rights of the owner are protected. The court further stated that the issue of ownership and the validity of the transfer can be considered by the civil court, but for the purpose of interim custody, the possession of the accused was a relevant factor.
Result: The court allowed the application of the accused, Milind, and ordered the return of the motorcycle to him on execution of supratnama and furnishing a guarantee to the satisfaction of the magistrate. The court dismissed the application of the complainant, Arvind. The court clarified that its decision regarding interim custody should not be taken as expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the title of the motorcycle. The trial court was instructed to proceed with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in both the applications.
3. These two applications involve common question of facts and law and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The short question that arises for consideration in these proceedings is whether interim custody of the motor vehicle can be given pending the criminal prosecution.
4. Applicant/accused Milind is the nephew of complainant Arvind. Both of them contended that the Hero Honda motorcycle is owned by them and, therefore, sought the release of the said motorcycle on supratnama by filing applications, before the learned J.M.F.C., whereby the applications filed by both of them came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, criminal revisions were filed in the Court of Sessions Judge and the said criminal revisions were also dismissed.
5. In Criminal Application No. 1598/99 it is contended that the applicant Milind is the owner of Hero Honda Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. MH-31/L-5096 and it was transferred to him by his paternal uncle, Arvind Tanbaji Rokade, on 16-3-1998. It is contended that on that day the transfer papers were signed and were handed over along with the said motorcycle to the applicant. It is contended that on 24-4-1998 Arvind lodged a complaint at Police Station Ganeshpeth about the theft of the two wheeler motorcycle and an offence came to be registered under section 379 of Indian Penal Code bearing Crime No. 199 of 1998. According to the complainant Arvind, he was the registered owner of the said Hero Honda motorcycle which was stolen on 22-4-1998 at about 7.00 p.m. from the premises of his office. The name of the suspect was not mentioned in the report. It is contended that the traffic police had challaned the said Hero Honda motorcycle of the applicant Milind on 22-4-1998 at about 11.00 a.m. and he was required to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on that day. It is contended that the P.S.O. of Ganeshpeth Police Station called the applicant Milind along with the Hero Honda Motorcycle in the Police Station on 2-5-1998. He appeared in the Police Station along with the documents of the motor cycle. The P.S.O. was satisfied with the documents of the motor cycle and allowed the applicant Milind to take away the vehicle. The Deputy Police Inspector, Ganeshpeth Police Station, had visited the R.T.O. and enquired about the ownership of the vehicle in question and when the R.T.O. assured him that the documents of the vehicle in question in possession of the applicant Milind were genuine and that the vehicle was transferred in his name, prepared B summary to submit it in the Court. Thereafter on 23-7-1998, the applicant was again called in the Police Station and at that time the said Hero Honda motorcycle was seized and, as such, it is in the custody of the police.
6. In Criminal Application No. 1678/99, the case of the applicant/complainant Arvind is that the said Hero Honda Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. MH-31/L-5096 was stolen away and hence he had lodged report against Milind on 24-4-1998 on the basis of which offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 119 of 1998 was registered and the said Hero Honda motorcycle was seized from the possession of Milind. Thereafter he had filed an application for return of the said vehicle on supratnama in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. which came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by that order, revision was filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge and the revision also came to be rejected on the ground that no interference was required in the interim order passed by this Court.
7. The learned Counsel for Milind Rokade contended that the said Hero Honda Motorcycle was transferred in his name by Arvind on 16-3-1998 and the necessary entries were recorded in the R.T.O. records. She further co
