1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.5/2015

in

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.689/2011

(Laxman v. State of Rajasthan)

Date:27/01/2015

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Mr. Harendra Sinsinwar, for the applicant.

Mr. Aladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor for the State.

The present application has been moved by accused-

applicant, Laxman, for supurdagi of a TVS Suzuki Samurai

Motorcycle, bearing registration No.RJ01-8M-9880.

The learned counsel for the applicant pleads that the

applicant, along with other co-accused, was allegedly involved

in a murder case. He was convicted and sentenced by

judgment dated 17.6.2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track) No.2, Ajmer. The said judgment is under challenge

before this court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.689/11. By order

dated 12.9.2011, this court had granted the benefit of bail to

the applicant. But during the course of investigation, the TVS

Suzuki Samurai Motorcycle owned by the applicant, was seized

by the police and is presently lying at the Police Station

Ramganj, Ajmer. According to the applicant, the said

motorcycle was purchased after taking a loan from M/s. Kuber

Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer. But the applicant has repaid the

entire loan as would be obvious from the letter dated

12.10.2009 issued by the said Private Limited Company.

2.

Further, according to the applicant, in case the motorcycle is

kept outside, it is subject to deterioration due to natural

weather conditions. Hence, the motorcycle would continue to

be devalued. It will lose both its utility and its value. Relying on

the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat

[(2002) 10 SCC 283], the learned counsel has pleaded that

the said motorcycle should be given on supurdagi to the

applicant.

In all fairness, the learned Public Prosecutor has not

objected to the request made by the applicant.

In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the

Hon’ble Suprme Court has opined as under while dealing with

the power under Section 451 Cr.P.C.:-

7. In our view, the powers under Section 451

Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously.

It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer

because of its remaining unused or by its

misappropriation.

2. Court or the police would not be required to

keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper panchanama before handing

over possession of article is prepared, that can be

used in evidence instead of its production before the

Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could

also be recorded describing the nature of the

properly in detail; and

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record

evidence should be exercised promptly so that there

may not be further chance of tampering with the

articles.

Even earlier in the case of Basavva Kom Dyamangouda

Patil v. State of Mysore [(1977) 4 SCC 358], the Apex

Court has observed as under:-

3.

4. The object and scheme of the various provisions

of the Code appear to be that where the property which

has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by

the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of

the Court or of the police for any time longer than what

is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by

the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property

to a Government servant, the idea is that the property

should be restored to the original owner after the

necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there

may be two stages when the property may be returned

to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during

any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary

where the property concerned is subject to speedy or

natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons

also which may justify