Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Md. Rafique @ Mohammad Rafique, S/o Late Md. Qurban - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No. 776 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Md. Shadab Ansari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for the release of seized vehicles and the imposition of specific terms and conditions for such release.
Headnote:
Section 451 - Release of Seized Vehicle - The court quashed the order rejecting the release of a seized vehicle and allowed its release to the petitioner under certain terms and conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the order rejecting the release of a seized vehicle used in a crime. The petitioner argued that the charge-sheet had been submitted and that the vehicle should not be allowed to deteriorate.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle and that all related papers were valid and up-to-date. The court concluded that keeping the vehicle in police premises would serve no fruitful purpose and would lead to its deterioration.
Issues: The main issue was the release of the seized vehicle under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. and the judgment in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing the need to prevent the evidence from being lost, altered, or destroyed and the importance of imposing appropriate conditions for the return of seized vehicles.
Final Decision: The court quashed the previous orders and allowed the release of the seized vehicle to the petitioner under specific terms and conditions, subject to the final result of the confiscation proceeding and the criminal proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Md. Shadab Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.01.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.45/2021 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih and for quashing the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in M.C.A. No.1511/2021 in Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.31/2021, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle vide registration no. JH 10 CC-7351 (Maruti Dzire VXI) was rejected. The further prayer is made to release to the said vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now charge-sheet has been submitted. He further submits that the vehicle in question was allegedly used to carry the dead body. He also submits that no fruitful purpose will be served if the vehicle is allowed to be deteriorated. He further submits that the petitioner will not sale the vehicle in question and produced the same before the trial court whenever such direction shall be issued by the learned trial court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the vehicle was used in crime which has come in the case diary. He submits that in that view of the matter the trial court as well as the revisional court have not released the vehicle in question.
5. Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. was the subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. was considered. Paragraphs 13, 17 and 18 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:
“13. For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 CrPC to impose any other appropriate condition.
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”
6. From the revisional order, it transpires that the charge-sheet has been submitted. The revisional court has observed that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized Maruti Swift Dzire bearing Registration No. JH10CC-7351 and all the papers related to the said vehicle are valid and upto-date.
7. In view of the above facts and considering that no fruitful purpose will be served if the vehicle stands in the premises of the police and day by day, the same shall be deteriorated. Accordingly, the order dated 31.01.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.45/2021 by the learned Principal Sessions Jud
