Writ petition filed to quash order rejecting application for release of seized vehicle. Court dismissed petition as vehicle identity was not established via manufacturer certificate before release could be granted.
Petition dismissed leaving open for petitioner to file fresh application supported by manufacturer evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3194 of 2018 Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
This petition has been filed to quash the judgement and order dated 28.10.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah, in Case No.162 of 2017 (State Vs. Gulfhan Urf Pukna Banjara), under Sections 411, 413, 420, IPC, Police Station Vaidpura, District Etawah, by which he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for release the vehicle which is case property, as well as order dated 27.11.2017, passed by Criminal Revision No.172 of 2017(Yogesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others),
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. In support of such submission, reliance has been placed on the certificate issued by the registering authority, which certify the fact that vehicle bearing registration No. UP81BT-7490 (LGV), bearing Engine No.497SP67GTY622169 and Chasis No.MAT455223G8G16004, is owned by the present petitioner.
Also it is submitted that according to the prosecution case at the time of the vehicle being detained by the police, it was bearing a registration plate bearing registration No.UP80BT 7498.
In this regard it is submitted that the owner of the vehicle registered at the aforesaid number Suresh Kumar has stated before the learned court below that his vehicle is available with him. Therefore, it is being asserted that the detained vehicle
does not belong to Suresh Kumar.
Consequently it is submitted that the petitioner is the only person claiming detained vehicle and therefore, the learned court below has erred in rejecting the application for release in favour of the present petitioner.
Perusal of the order dated 28.10.2017 reveals that the learned court below has rejected the application to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on the reasoning that the engine number and chasis number on the vehicle in question have been found smudged/scored out smashed. Therefore, the application has been rejected on account of the identity of the vehicle having not being established, at this stage.
The certificate of the registering authority, therefore, cannot be of any help to the petitioner, as that certificate would be relevant only, if the identity of the vehicle with reference to its chasis number and engine number were admitted or established.
In such circumstances, it is only the manufacturer of the vehicle, if at all, who may be in a position to certify the true identity of the vehicle in question.
At present the petitioner has not led any evidence as may indicate that manufacturer of the vehicle had identified the said vehicle claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order dated 28.10.2017.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a fresh application as such stage supported by such evidence as may indicate that the vehicle which is the case property is the same, of which the petitioner claims to be owner.
Order Date :- 7.5.2018/VKG
1 issue framed by the court
Whether application for release of seized vehicle should be allowed when vehicle identity is not established due to smudged engine and chassis numbers.
Yogesh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
