Back
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Rokongulie, S/o. Late Yahovi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam – Respondent
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
Ownership determination of seized property must await trial completion, and zimma petitions cannot be granted without conclusive evidence of ownership.
Unauthorized detention of a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act and the liability of the State for high-handed actions of RTO officers
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, but serious allegations under the NDPS Act necessitate the continuation of proceedings despite procedural flaws.
The NDPS Act's specific provisions regarding seized vehicles take precedence over general Cr.P.C. provisions, requiring proof of ownership and lack of knowledge of illicit use for return of property.
The main legal point established is that under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., a court may allow the interim release of a seized vehicle with specific conditions, considering the practical problems faced by ....
A court maintains jurisdiction to decide on the interim custody of seized property unless given proper notice of confiscation proceedings, as outlined in related statutes.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
