Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Mangilal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Others - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1038 of 2019
Decided On : 28-01-2020
Mr. Shreekant Verma, Adv, for the Appellants; Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deepak Korpal on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Matoria, Adv, for the Respondents
The court has the discretion to set aside an order based on the facts and circumstances of the case, as demonstrated in the release and subsequent forfeiture of the seized vehicle.
Headnote:
Cr.P.C. - Criminal Revision Petition - Release of Seized Vehicle
Fact of the Case:
The trial court cancelled the release of a seized vehicle, which was earlier released in favor of the petitioner, and ordered the police to seize the vehicle again. The petitioner sought the release of the vehicle, claiming ownership through a chain of sales.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order cancelling the release of the vehicle deserved to be set aside. The criminal revision petition was allowed, and the order of the trial court was set aside, directing the seized vehicle to be kept with the petitioner until the issue of ownership is decided at the final disposal of the case.
Issues: The main issue was the cancellation of the release of the seized vehicle and the ownership dispute arising from a chain of sales.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the previous release of the vehicle in favor of the petitioner and the subsequent forfeiture by the trial court. It found that the order cancelling the release deserved to be set aside based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was allowed, and the order of the trial court cancelling the release of the seized vehicle was set aside. The seized vehicle was ordered to be kept with the petitioner until the issue of ownership is decided at the final disposal of the case.
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh in Session Case No.02/2018, by which the trial court cancelled the Supardignama and jamanatnama and ordered the S.H.O, Police Station Sangaria to seize the jeep No.PB-05B 9090.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owner of the jeep was Subhash (respondent No.2). He sold the vehicle to Roopa Ram S/o Mamraj (respondent No.3) and Roopa Ram sold the said vehicle to Roop Ram (respondent No.4), who is father of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that earlier, the order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh vide order dated 04.04.2018 releasing the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner and all of sudden, the same court cancelled the release of the said vehicle. The said jeep is lying with the petitioner. It is prayed that the jeep bearing registration No.PB-05B 9090 may be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner will not misuse the liberty granted to him.
3. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents do not oppose the prayer of the petitioner.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the documents available on record.
5. Earlier, the aforesaid vehicle was released in favour of the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh vide order dated 04.04.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.53/2018 and the same court forfeited the said vehicle. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria deserves to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria is set aside. It is ordered that the jeep No.PB 05B 9090 as per the order passed by the trial court on 04.04.2018 be kept with the petitioner. The issue with regard to the registered owner shall be decided at the final disposal of the case by the trial court.
