Allowed

Ramji Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2023A227/4010/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, registered owner of a vehicle seized in four criminal cases involving arms smuggling and attempted murder, filed a writ under Article 227 challenging orders rejecting his application for vehicle release. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, set aside the lower courts' dismissal and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the application afresh, allowing release subject to

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; Magistrate directed to consider release application afresh and release vehicle subject to undertaking, bond, and sureties.

Ramji Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4010 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramji Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai,Ashutosh Gupta,Vandana Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Instant petition Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with prayer to issue a writ or direction for setting aside the order dated 17.3.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Mathura in Crl. Revision No. 65 of 2017 (Ramji Lal Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 11.1.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Mathura whereby an application filed for release of his vehicle Scorpio bearing Registration No. UP 83 P 4674 in his favour has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuing a direction to respondent no. 3 for releasing the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

¶7

As per the prosecution version, police team headed by S.H.O. Rajeev Singh intercepted a Scorpio bearing Registration No. UP 83 P 4674 coming towards Agra, while they were engaged in vehicle checking. On noticing Police team, the persons sitting in the vehicle, had opened fire at Police team with intention to kill. However they got narrow escaped and nobody got injured in the incident. Large number of illegal arms and cartridges were recovered from said vehicle. The persons sitting in the vehicle admitted that said vehicle was stolen and they were using the vehicle by displaying a false number plate on it in order to avoid its identification. The vehicle was seized in Crime No. 16/2017, under Section 307 IPC and subsequently, it was also seized in Crime No. 17/2017, under Sections 41/102 Cr.P.C. and 420, 411 IPC, Crime No. 18 of 2017, under Section 3/25 Arms Act and Crime No. 19/2017, under Sections 3/25 Arms Act. Petitioner moved an application for release of the said vehicle being its registered owner before the court of learned Magistrate under Section 451 Cr.P.C., however, same was rejected vide order dated 11.01.2017 in respect of Crime No. 16/2017 under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Highway, Mathura on the ground that the said vehicle is involved in 4 criminal cases and large number of illegal arms and ammunition were

¶8

recovered from the vehicle, which was being driven by his driver displaying false number plate. The matter is under investigation and it appears that the said vehicle was used in smuggling of illegal arms and there is possibility that in case of its release, vehicle may be further used in commission of such type of offence.

¶9

Feeling aggrieved by the order of leaned magistrate, revision was filed before the court of Sessions Judge in which revisionist was directed to implead the person from whose possession the said vehicle was recovered but the order dated 20.01.2017 was not complied with by the revisionist and on 16.02.2017, an application 8-kha was filed by the revisionist that he is not pressing the revision petition and the same may be dismissed. However, the learned Sessions Judge observed that criminal revision cannot be dismissed on the ground that it is not pressed by the revisionist. Learned Judge observed that the said vehicle has been used in transportation of illegal arms and ammunition and order of learned Magistrate rejecting the release application of the petitioner was lawful and in accordance with the evidence on record. There was no illegality, irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner that learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner without considering the purport of Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. Learned Courts below have failed to consider that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle and he is not accused in the case. Said vehicle was stolen by accused persons and by unknown persons from the possession of driver of the petitioner who is missing since the date on which the vehicle was stolen and the petitioner has nothing to do with the articles recovered from the vehicle. The learned court below have failed to consider the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 LawSuit (SC) 1346 , wherein it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai (supra) that it is of no use to keep vehicle seized in an offence at police station for long period. It is for magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicle, if required at any point of time.

¶11

Per Contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made in petition and submitted that pleadings have been exchanged by filing of counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit and there is no error or illegality in impugned order passed by learned courts below. The said vehicle is involved in four criminal cases and large number of arms and ammunition were recovered from the vehicle, which were smuggled for some criminal purposes.

¶12

Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and material on record, this may be added that this fact has not been denied that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle. He is not accused in the case. He has stated that said vehicle was stolen from possession of his driver and in recovery memo in Crime No 17/2017, under Section 41, 102 Cr.P.C. and Section 420 and 411 IPC, P.S. Highway, District Mathura, this fact has been stated by the Investigating Officer that the arrested accused persons had confessed that the vehicle was stolen by them. Therefore, in compliance of larger mandate of Hon'ble The Apex Court in Sunderbhai (Supra), appropriate order should have been passed by the courts below instead of rejecting the release application on technical grounds. Even if the said vehicle is involved in four criminal cases, its detention at Police Station for indefinite period is not going to serve any useful purpose of law. Learned Magistrate has power to release the same in favour of the registered owner subject to terms and conditions and directions for production of vehicle as and when required by the court. The release application was moved initially in respect of Crime No. 16/2017, under Section 307 IPC before court below and revisional court which was rejected by the courts below by impugned order.

¶13

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and on perusal of impugned orders, I am of the opinion that the same are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai (supra). Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment in paragraph no. 17 and 18 observed as under:-

¶14

" 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep suchseized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

¶15

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."

¶16

The impugned orders are set aside. Learned magistrate is directed to consider the release application moved by petitioner

¶17

afresh in the light of observations made in the present petition and learned magistrate may release the vehicle in favour of registered owner/petitioner subject to filing an appropriate undertaking and personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the court and appropriate direction may be issued by the court below for production of the vehicle in case of its need during trial.

¶18

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of in the manner.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.1.2023 A.P. Pandey

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramji Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sarita and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Danish Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Swati Rawani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Sara @ Anshul and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Diwan Gupta (Minor) and Another Vs State of U P and Another