Hon'ble VERMA, J.— Even though the question projected in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stands answered by a judgment of two learned judges of this Court reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 titled Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat pertaining to interpretation and mode of implementation of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Code'), but on account of certain grey areas having been left untouched, which still cast clouds on the question, this petition has been filed for further directions, orders and clarifications.

2. Petitioner No.1, General Insurance Council has been constituted under Section 64 C (b) of the Insurance Act, 1938 consisting of all the members and associate members of the association as envisaged in Section 64A of the said Act, who carry on general insurance business in India and are being represented by Petitioner No. 1 and have been arrayed as Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 in the said petition.

3. According to them, there has been a gross violation of fundamental rights as conferred on them under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Thus, they are constrained to approach this Court directly by filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. They further contended that despite the directions passed by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), as also in W.P. (C) No. 282 of 2007 titled General Insurance Council and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., decided on 9.7.2007, there has not been full and complete compliance of the same. Therefore, they have once again approached this Court for issuing further directions so that national waste with regard to the seized vehicles involved in commission of various offences may not become junk and their road worthiness be maintained.

4. According to the Petitioners, the report of 2005 of NCRB, 84,675 vehicles were reported lost, out of which 24,918 vehicles were recovered by the police and out of these, only 4,676 vehicles were finally co-ordinated. As a result, several hundred crores worth of assets were lost. Further, by the time the recovered vehicles are released, the same are reduced to junk at the respective police stations. In other words, Petitioners have prayed that national waste that is being caused could be substantially reduced, curbed and eliminated to a great extent. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts in mind, they have filed this Writ Petition.

5. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the Supreme Court was primarily dealing with provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code. While quoting the aforesaid two provisions of the Act in the judgment, it was observed in para 7 as under:-

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

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its produc-tion before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.”

6. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution, it was directed that following measures should be adopted giving instances contained in para 12 reproduced hereinbelow:

“12 For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:

(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;

(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document