SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Mr. Rokongulie, S/o. Late Yahovi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 448 of 2024
Decided On : 22-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Murry.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Baishya, Addl. P.P.

IMPORTANT POINT
Ownership determination of seized property must await trial completion, and zimma petitions cannot be granted without conclusive evidence of ownership.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Application for quashing orders regarding the zimma of a seized vehicle - Petitioner claimed ownership of the vehicle seized in connection with a case of alleged liquor transportation - Previous zimma petitions were dismissed, and the trial is ongoing - Court upheld the dismissal of the zimma petition, emphasizing the need for trial completion before ownership determination. (Paras 10, 12, 30)

(B) Ownership and Zimma Petitions - The court must ascertain ownership of seized property without delving into the merits of the case - The petitioner's claim of ownership was not conclusively established at this stage of the trial. (Paras 15, 29)

Facts of the case:

The petitioner, Mr. Rokongulie, claimed ownership of a Toyota Innova vehicle seized in connection with a case involving the illegal transportation of liquor. The vehicle was purchased through auction, but the petitioner had not transferred the ownership before the seizure. (Paras 6, 9)

Findings of Court:

The court found that the petitioner's ownership was not conclusively established, and the trial was ongoing, thus upholding the dismissal of the zimma petition. (Paras 30)

Issues: The main issues were the determination of ownership of the seized vehicle and the appropriateness of the zimma petition dismissal during the trial. (Paras 10, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that ownership determination must await trial completion, emphasizing that the petitioner's claim was not sufficiently substantiated at this stage. (Paras 29, 30)

Result: Petition dismissed with liberty to apply for zimma afresh during or after trial. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

1. Heard N.K. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

2. The petitioner, Mr. Rokongulie, has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (CrPC, for short), read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is the owner of the vehicle of Toyota Innova make, bearing Registration No. 124 CD 4 (Old)/NL07 CC-1321 (New), Engine No. 2KD9773818 (Old)/73818 (New), Chassis No. MBJ11JV4007064265-1106, seized in connection with Khatkhati PS Case No. 231/2021, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), read with Section 53 (1) (a) of the Assam Excise Act (GR Case No. 632/2021).

4. It is submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted on 30.03.2022 and the case is registered as PRC Case No. 200/2022, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokajan, Karbi Anglong, Assam (JMFC, for short).

5. The petitioner filed a Zimma Petition No. 2797/2023, along with supporting documents to establish his right. Vide impugned order dated 10.10.2023, passed by the learned JMFC, Bokajan, this zimma petition was rejected by the Court. The petitioner then preferred a criminal revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, but the same was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.02.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. The petitioner has prayed to quash the impugned order dated 10.10.2023, passed by the learned JMFC, in PRC Case No. 200/2022, corresponding to GR Case No. 632/2021, as well as the impugned order dated 22.02.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 22/2023.

6. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is the rightful owner of the seized Toyota Innova Vehicle bearing Registration No. 124CD4 and the photocopy of the Registration Certificate dated 21.03.2023 is marked as Annexure-A of the petition. He purchased the vehicle from Mrs. Taramattee Sabrina Chitram, the First Secretary of the High Commission of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana in New Delhi. When the vehicle was put up for auction, he paid a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the vehicle was handed over to him on 10.11.2021, after completion of all the documentations.

7. It is further submitted that on 11.11.2021, the petitioner booked a trailer truck from the transporting agency, namely, Rattan Road Carriers, for transporting the vehicle from New Delshi to Dimapur, Nagaland and the same was received by the petitioner, at Dimapur, on 27.11.2021.

8. It is further submitted that on 29.11.2021, the petitioner approached the concerned DTO for change of ownership of the vehicle into his name, but it was informed to him that the office of the DTO was not functioning due to the COVID-19 pandemic and office works would resume in the first week of January, 2022. The other reason of the office being closed was that the Hornbill Festival was also in the pipeline. The Hornbill Festival is held in Kohima from 1st of December to 10th of December every year. This prevented the petitioner from transferring the vehicle to his name.

9. Meanwhile, on 18.12.2021, one person, namely, Ohad Ali of Dimapur requested the petitioner to provide his vehicle. The petitioner being a friend of Ohad Ali, allowed him to use the aforementioned vehicle on good faith, but unfortunately, while Ohad Ali was returning from Khatkhati towards Nagaland, he was stopped by the Police. As soon as the vehicle was stopped, Ohad Ali fled the scene and then the vehicle was seized by the Police with allegations that the vehicle is a stolen vehicle.

10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not at all aware that Ohad Ali was transporting liquor through his vehicle. The liquor was being transported by Ohad Ali w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top