ORDER

02.12.2021 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

On 11.05.2021, the vehicle bearing AS-01-GC-1854, was seized by the IO in connection with Abhayapuri PS Case No. 429/2021, under Sections 406/420/379 IPC. In the FIR, it was alleged that vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-16 AC-3562, while transporting corn from Kirtanpara, Bongaigaon to Agartala, was found missing and the driver did not contact the consignor to send the article. It was alleged that the driver of the vehicle deceitfully lifted the corn and misappropriated the same and thereby cheated the informant.

The petition filed by one Bilat Ali (petitioner herein), praying for zimma of the vehicle bearing No. AS-01 GC 1854, stating himself to be the power of attorney holder on behalf of the owner, Jahidul Islam, was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 14.09.2019, on the ground of release of vehicle to the custody of the power of attorney holder without indicating the owner of the vehicle may not be proper. Challenging the aforesaid order, the said petitioner is before this Court with the present petition that as he has been empowered by the original owner, which is also reflected from the report of the IO, he should be given the zimma of the vehicle. The decision of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai –Vs- State of Gujarat; AIR 2003 SC 638, has also been relied to submit that keeping of vehicle for an indefinite period will cause extensive damage to the vehicle. The special power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner and the RC of the original owner is also annexed with the petition to justify the claim for zimma.

Today, the Case Diary along with the report of the IO has been produced and it is also a finding of the IO that Jahidul Islam is the registered owner of the said vehicle and in fact, the vehicle that has been referred in the FIR and the present vehicle, that has been seized is the same vehicle, bearing same Chassis number and engine number, but the number plate of the vehicle has now been changed. That being so, it is discernible that the present vehicle has been used in the same offence that has been alleged in the FIR.

Admittedly, the original owner of the vehicle Jahidul Islam, is a resident of Baihata Chariali, Kamalpur, Kamrup, but instead of approaching to the IO or to the Court for release of the vehicle, he has executed a power of attorney in favour of other person, which is not properly explained.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the examination of the said owner of the vehicle and recording of his statement is very much essential for the proper investigation of the case, as to whether the said commission of offence has been made only on the part of the driver or anything is there to suggest the original owner also. A similar report was placed by the IO before the learned trial Court and it is found that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated that only on the basis of the decision rendered in Sunderbhai Ambalal (supra), the power of attorney holder cannot be given the custody of the vehicle, whereas, the original owner is still present. I find no any irregularity in the order so passed by the learned trial Court, but however, the IO is at liberty to release the vehicle to the original owner, on due verification of the documents pertaining to the seized vehicle after recording his necessary statement.

The present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the original owner, Jahidul Islam, to appear before the IO to give his statement and the IO may release the vehicle in his favour, on execution of a bond of Rs. 5 lacs, after due verification of the relevant documents.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant