HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
RAVINDRA KUMAR SON OF MAHIPAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMP 2740/2021
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the police in connection with an FIR registered under the Rajasthan Excise Act. The investigating agency submitted a negative Final Report, concluding that the petitioner was not involved in the misuse of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitioner's plea for the release of the vehicle, holding that the petitioner was the registered owner and there was no evidence of his involvement in the misuse of the vehicle.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the release of his vehicle despite it being seized in connection with an FIR under the Rajasthan Excise Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], which held that the owner of a vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Excise Act is entitled to its release if he is not involved in the offence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the vehicle in favor of the petitioner upon furnishing a Supurdaginama of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a surety of like amount.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2740/2021
Ravindra Kumar Son Of Mahipal, Resident Of Village Dobra,
Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Virender Godara
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. F.R. Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/01/2022
By way of filing of the instant miscellaneous petition,
challenge has been made to the order dated 26.03.2021 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu in FIR
No. 09/2018 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, Distt.
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan whereby the prayer made by the petitioner
for releasing the vehicle in question (Pick-up) bearing registration
No. RJ18GA3448, has been declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
conducting thorough investigation in the matter, it is concluded by
the investigating agency that some other person had misused the
vehicle while it was lying in an abandoned condition and thus, a
negative Final Report has been submitted.
Learned counsel further submits that in this view of the
matter that the involvement of the vehicle in question as well as
knowledge of the petitioner regarding use of vehicle in
(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-2740/2021]
contravention of provision of Rajasthan Excise Act has not been
found by the Investigating Agency and the petitioner, being the
registered owner of the vehicle in question, is best entitled to get
back the possession and the fetter contained in Section 69 of the
Rajasthan Excise Act, would not come into play.
Learned Public Prosecutor admits the fact that a negative
Final Report has been submitted wherein the involvement of the
petitioner has not been found.
In this view, looking to the fact that the vehicle is lying in
open in Police station premises and is subject to deterioration and
natural decay and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of
Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283], the petition is allowed and this
Court deem it appropriate to release the vehicle in favour of the
petitioner provided he furnishes a Supurdaginama of Rs.
5,00,000/- and a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the
Magistrate concerned.
(FARJAND ALI),J
SAHIL/32
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.