IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for prompt judicial action in releasing seized vehicles to prevent unnecessary decay and loss to the owner.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Ramsajiwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Monika Thakur, P.L. appearing for the State-respondent.

2. The petitioner has been preferred this instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (now District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur) (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 19/2023, arising out of order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for releasing his vehicle.

3. The case in nutshell is that against the petitioner, police has registered a case under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 for sale and purchase purpose. The petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle Mahindra Pick-Up bearing registration no. CG-16-CQ-5839, which was purchased by the petitioner though finance. On 01.03.2023, the aforesaid vehicle of petitioner has been seized by the Police of Police Station, Pondi for transportation of 5 buffalos. The FIR bearing Crime No. 41/2023 has been registered against Chandan Singh and Sheikh Ilfaz for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 6, 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and Section 11(1) (D) of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and subsequently the petitioner has also been arrayed as an accused on the ground that he is the owner of the seized vehicle. The petitioner being registered owner of the seized vehicle, filed an application before the learned JMFC, Manendragarh for grant of interim custody of the seized vehicle. Vide order dated 25.05.2023 the learned JMFC has rejected the Supurdnama application by relying on the provisions of 6(3) of Act, 2004, Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2023, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh and vide impugned order dated 17.07.2023, the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also not sustainable before the eye of law. He further contended that the petitioner is registered owner of offending vehicle, and he is having a valid and effective documents required for the said vehicle, therefore he should be entitled for the Supurdnama. The trial Court has failed to see that the said vehicle is standing in the open area for a long time and the vehicle is getting damaged which is an ultimate loss of the petitioner. The vehicle was not involved in any crime, but still the police has seized the vehicle, therefore, it will be appropriate to release the vehicle on Supurdnama.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are just and proper needs no interference.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and order passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties and further considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, in Para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:-

“7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

(i) Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

(ii) Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody.

(