SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(All) 688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. GUPTA,.
ISHTIYAQ AHMAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. R. 1792 Of 2001
Decided On : 07/16/2001

Advocates Appeared:
A.KUMAR SINGH

Unjustified rejection of an application for the release of a seized vehicle and the conditions for its interim custody.

Headnote:

Seizure - Vehicle Release - Unjustified Rejection

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought the release of a seized vehicle, which was rejected by the lower court due to the absence of the driver. The vehicle was seized under specific acts related to cow slaughter and cruelty to animals.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the lower court's rejection unjustified and directed the release of the vehicle under certain conditions, including proving ownership, executing a bond, and ensuring the vehicle's availability for inquiry or trial.

Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the application for interim release of the seized vehicle due to the absence of the driver.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unjustified rejection of the application and the applicant's claim of ownership, as well as the need to ensure the vehicle's availability for legal proceedings.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the lower court was directed to pass an appropriate order for the interim custody and release of the vehicle under specified conditions.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Anil Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant in revision and the learned A. G. A. for the State.

( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 4-7-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 12), Azamgarh dismissing the application to release the vehicle (Truck No. U. P. 42-B-7671) in his favour.

( 3 ) THE vehicle in question was seized by the police in case crime No. 224 of 2001, under Section 3/5/8 of U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of U. P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, P. S. Phoolpur, district Azamgarh. The seizure was reported to the Court below. The applicant claiming himself to be registered owner of the said vehicle moved an application for releasing the said vehicle in his interim custody. That application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that the truck owner has not produced the driver in the Court and since the driver was still absconding, there was no justification in releasing the truck in question. The reason assigned by the Court below for rejecting the applicants application for interim release of the vehicle in question is wholly unjustified. In the affidavit filed in support of the revision it is stated that the said vehicle is lying in open sky at the police station. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000 (41) ACC 418 : (2001 0 AIR (SCW) 2214 ).

( 4 ) IN the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate order on the application moved by the revisionist for interim custody of the vehicle in question and it may be released in favour of the applicant on the following conditions. (1) that the applicant satisfies the Court below that he is registered owner of the said vehicle and the vehicle is otherwise fit for plying on road; (2) that after such satisfaction if the applicant executes a personal bond in a sum of rupees one lakh with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate (3) that the applicant shall not transfer or alienate the vehicle in question by selling it or otherwise in favour of any third person nor possession of the same will be parted with its without prior permission of the Magistrate concerned and (4) that the applicant shall produce the said vehicle before the Court or before such other authority as the Court may direct in the course of inquiry or trial or confiscation proceedings as the case may be whenever required to do so.

( 5 ) THE revision is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top