Allowed

Mohd. Kasim v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2023A482/18176/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging two orders rejecting the release of a seized ultrasound machine, the court set aside the impugned orders. The machine was held as case property under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and IPC. The court allowed the release subject to adequate security being furnished to satisfy the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 15.03.2022 and 19.02.2021 were set aside and the seized machine may be released to the applicant subject to furnishing adequate security to the lower court.

Mohd. Kasim Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18176 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Kasim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today. Taken on record.

¶6

Present application has been filed to challenge the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Hapur and the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur whereby the application filed by the applicant to release the Ultrasound Machine made case property in Case Crime No. 204 of 2020, under Sections - 419, 420 I.P.C. and Sections - 6/18/23/25 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, Police Station - Dhaulana, District Hapur, has been rejected.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is seen, the applicant holds registration under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act with respect to the Centre Public Ultrasound and the Diagnostic Centre, Gulawati Road, Dhaulana, District - Hapur from where the machine in question was seized. At present, the machine is lying seized at the same premises.

¶8

It has been submitted, no other person has made claim over the machine. It is lying idle. Other than technical breach noted, there is no allegation of misuse of the machinery for purpose prohibited by the above described Act. At present, the machine appears to have been seized for reason of its manufacturing details being not found present and of the authorised operator not found present at the time of the inspection.

¶9

Leaving it open to the learned court below to draw its

¶10

conclusion at the stage of final hearing, at present, no useful purpose may be served in allowing the machine to remain idle as the proceedings before the trial may take a long time to conclude.

¶11

Other than general objection raised by the prosecution, no other special facts or consideration were raised before the learned court below to reject the application for release. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Hapur and the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur are set aside. It is provided, the machine seized from the applicant's premise (Centre Public Ultrasound and the Diagnostic Centre, Gulawati Road, Dhaulana, District - Hapur) on 07.05.2020 may be released in favour of the applicant subject to his furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the learned court below. At the time of release, sufficient mark of identification may be placed on the machinery which may be preserved by the applicant so as to establish its identity at any later stage.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation, present application is allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Ashutosh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Kasim v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Kasim v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anshika Tyagi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Madhuri Bharti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kallu Singh @ Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Chahal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another