Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(Ori) 529

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
L. Mohapatra, J.
ANTARYAMI SWAIN - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
CRL MC No. 1075 of 2004
Decided On : 29-06-2004

Advocates Appeared:
Debasnan Das, R.R. Chottaray and B.R. Dalei, for the Appellant; S. Das, A.S.C., for the Respondent

Prompt release of seized vehicles in favor of the owner pending disposal of the case, with appropriate conditions imposed by the Magistrate.

Headnote:
Seizure - Motor-cycle - Release pending disposal of the case
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, owner of a seized motor-cycle, filed an application for its release under section 457 Cr. P.C. The application was rejected by the learned Magistrate, citing the need for the vehicle for identification purposes and incomplete ownership documentation.
Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the previous orders and directed the learned Magistrate to reconsider the petition in light of the decision of the Apex Court, emphasizing that the vehicle should be released in favor of the owner pending disposal of the case, with the imposition of suitable conditions.
Issues: Challenge to rejection of application for release of seized motor-cycle
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court, emphasizing the need for prompt release of seized vehicles in favor of the owner pending disposal of the case, with appropriate conditions imposed by the Magistrate.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the learned Magistrate was directed to reconsider the petition, ensuring the release of the motor-cycle in favor of the owner with suitable terms and conditions.

Judgement Key Points

Case Summary: Antaryami Swain v. State of Orissa (CRL MC No. 1075 of 2004)

Parties and Court

High Court of Orissa, Single Judge bench (L. Mohapatra, J.). (!) (!)

Facts

A Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle (Reg. No. OR05-G-7207) was seized in G.R. Case No. 238 of 2003, registered under Sections 395 and 397 IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act. (!) [22000271580001]
Petitioner, claiming ownership, applied for release under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before JMFC (P), Kujanga. (!) [22000271580001]
Magistrate rejected the application, citing need for vehicle for identification and incomplete ownership documents. (!) [22000271580001]
Rejection upheld by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2003 (order dated 23.02.2004). (!)

Issues

Challenge to orders rejecting release of seized motorcycle pending trial. (!)

Court's Findings and Ratio

Seized vehicles should not be retained indefinitely at police stations. (!) (!) [22000271580002]
Magistrates must promptly exercise powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to release vehicles to owners pending trial, with bonds, guarantees, or security as needed. (!) (!) [22000271580002]
Release possible even pending applications, with conditions like not altering vehicle character or selling it until trial conclusion. (!) [22000271580002]
Retention beyond 15 days to one month undesirable; requires Magistrate discretion and High Court supervision. (!)

Decision

Petition allowed; both lower court orders set aside. [22000271580003]
Magistrate directed to reconsider application, release motorcycle to owner (if proven) on suitable terms/conditions. [22000271580002][22000271580003]
Urgent certified copy granted on application. (!)

Advocates

For Appellant: Debasnan Das, R.R. Chottaray, B.R. Dalei. [p_10? – inferred from document header]
For Respondent: S. Das, A.S.C. [p_10? – inferred from document header]

Final Result

Allowed. (!) [22000271580003]

JUDGMENT :

L. Mohapatra, J. - Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State. The order dated 23.2.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2003 as well as the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujanga on 22.11.2003 in G.R. Case No. 238 of 2003 ejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner for release of the motor-cycle are under challenge.

2. It appears that a Hero Honda Splender motor-cycle bearing registration No. OR05-G-7207 was seized in connection with the aforesaid G.R. Case registered for commission of offences under Sections 395 and 397 of the Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The Petitioner as owner of the said motor-cycle, tiled an application u/s 457 Cr. P.C before the learned Magistrate for release of the same. The petition was rejected on the ground that the vehicle would be required for the purpose of identification and it also appears that the documents with regard to ownership of the vehicle were not property placed before the learned Magistrate. The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444 held that:

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.

xxx

However, those powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers u/s 451 Code of Criminal Procedure are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.

3. In view of what has been stated in the aforesaid case, whatever may be the situation, the vehicle should be released in favour of owner of the vehicle pending disposal of the case. The learned Magistrate can also impose condition for release of the vehicle such as not to change the character of the vehicle, not to, sale etc. till conclusion of trial.

4. I, therefore, allow the petition, set aside both the orders and direct the learned Magistrate to reconsider the petition keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court as indicated above. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the Petitioner is the owner of the motor-cycle, the same shall be released in his favour on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may deem just and proper.

Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.

Final Result : Allowed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document