2015 Supreme(Raj) 1784
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Jimmi H. Jangalwala Proprietor M/s VESPAR - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1097 of 2015.
Decided On : 3-09-2015
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Shambhoo Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Vikram Rahpurohit, Public Prosecutor.
When a seized vehicle is not required for trial and photographs of the vehicle have been taken on record, the court may grant permission to the owner to sell the vehicle.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - SALE OF SEIZED VEHICLE - PERMISSION GRANTED - VEHICLE NOT REQUIRED FOR TRIAL - PHOTOGRAPHS OF VEHICLE TAKEN ON RECORD.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of a tanker involved in an accident, sought permission to sell the vehicle as it was not being used and was deteriorating. The trial court and revisional court rejected the application.
Finding of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court in M/s. Zoom Movers Proprietary Concern v. State of U.P. held that if a damaged vehicle cannot be used without repairs, the owner should not be asked to keep it in damaged condition until the trial's conclusion. Photographs of the vehicle and a technical inspection report can serve the purpose of identification during the trial.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted permission to sell the seized vehicle when it is not required for the trial and photographs of the vehicle have been taken on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court and revisional court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to sell the vehicle. The vehicle was not required for the trial as the report regarding its physical condition and mechanical defect was available on record. The petitioner was the owner of the vehicle and no one else had claimed its custody. Following the precedent set in M/s. Zoom Movers Proprietary Concern v. State of U.P., the court directed the trial court to take the latest photographs of the vehicle from various angles and prepare a panchnama before allowing the petitioner to transfer or dispose of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the trial court and revisional court, and directed the trial court to take photographs of the vehicle and prepare a panchnama before allowing the petitioner to sell the vehicle.
JUDGMENT
1. - This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the Order dated 6.1.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bhilwara (for short Revisional Court hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 71/2014, whereby the said Revision Petition has been dismissed. The said Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 1.8.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 498/2009, whereby the application filed by the petitioner with permission to sell the vehicle-tanker bearing No. GJ-15-UU-7779 was rejected.
2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, are that M/s. VESPAR owned by proprietor Jimmi H. Jangalwala is in business of transporting milk in various parts of the country and is owning several tankers for that purpose. One of the tankers of M/s. VESPAR bearing registration No.GJ-15-UU-7779 met with an accident on 26.10.2009 within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara and a case was registered against the driver of the said tanker for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. In connection with the said F.I.R., the vehicle in question was seized by the police and later on charge-sheet was filed against the accused-persons in the Trial Court. The Trial Court had released the vehicle in question on 'Supurdaginama' to the petitioner and at present, the petitioner is in possession of it.
3. The petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court with the prayer that since the vehicle in question is not being used in transportation of milk a the same has become old, permission may be granted to sell it. The said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Trial Court vide Order dated 1.8.2014. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the aforesaid Revision Petition, however, the Revisional Court has rejected the said Revision Petition vide impugned Order dated 6.1.2015. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner company has so many tankers for transporting the milk and they are used only for 3-4 years and thereafter they cannot be useful for the purpose of transporting the milk. It is submitted that after release of the vehicle in question on 'Supurdaginama', the same was got repaired but at present is not being used in transportation of the milk and lying in a garage. It is contended that since the vehicle in question is not in use and lying idle, its condition is being deteriorated day by day and, therefore, the petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court with the prayer to give permission to sell it but the Trial Court has illegally rejected the said prayer vide impugned Order dated 1.8.2014. It is contended that the Revisional Court has also illegally rejected the Revision Petition. It is reiterated that since the vehicle became old and cannot be used for the purpose of transportation of the milk, permission may be granted to sell the said vehicle.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the vehicle in question is not required to be produced in the Court during the trial and after releasing the same on 'Supurdaginama', it was repaired and its condition has been changed. It is further submitted that the photographs of the vehicle in question can be taken for the purpose of its identity and can be used during the course of trial. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Allahabad High Court rendered in M/s. Zoom Movers Proprietary Concern v. State of U.P., 2011(1) Cr CC 221 (Allahabad) , and argued that in similar circumstances, the Allahabad High Court has granted permission to sell the vehicle while giving direction to keep the photographs of the vehicle in the record of the Court.
6. On the strength o
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
