Allowed

Kumar Rai v. State of Assam

Gauhati HC3 Sept 2018Crl.Rev.P./262/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges a trial court order refusing custody of a seized vehicle to the petitioner on the ground of suspected theft despite documentary evidence proving ownership. The High Court set aside the refusal and directed the return of custody upon security.

What did the court decide?

The seized vehicle is directed to be handed over to the petitioner on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- and an undertaking to produce it when required by the trial court.

Kumar Rai Vs State of Assam — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010161512018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 262/2018

¶6

1:KUMAR RAI S/O LT.MAN BAHADUR RAI R/O CITY TOWER, CIRCULAR ROAD, DIMAPUR TOWN, DIST. DIMAPUR, NAGALAND, PIN - 797112.

¶7

VERSUS 1:STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DAS

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 03-09-2018

¶14

Heard Mr. S Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

¶15

Aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2018, passed by learned JMFC, Karbi Anglong in GR Case No.894/2017, this revision petition has been filed.

¶16

The vehicle bearing registration No.NL.03/A-7017 containing Chesis No.MAT449022C8N81668 and Engine No.B5918632, was seized by police from the

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

petitioner suspecting the same to be stolen article.

¶19

The petitioner filed an application purportedly under Section 451 Cr.P.C., for custody of the vehicle, which was rejected by the learned trial Court on the basis of a police report, which allegedly stated that the Chesis number and the Engine number were erased raising a presumption that the vehicle might be stolen.

¶20

The learned trial Court called for a report along with a copy of the pencil print of the Chesis and Engine number from the concerned DTO, and the said report is available in the case diary produced today. Though, it has been mentioned in the impugned order on the basis of the police report that the Chesis and Engine numbers were erased, the FIR lodged by the same officers transpires that there was no mention about erasing of the Engine number and Chasis number. Rather it was alleged, that the Engine number and Chasis number did not tally with the Engine number and Chasis number recorded in the registration certificate. Report of the DTO shows, that the vehicle was registered in the name of the present petitioner and the copy of the pencil print of the Chesis number and Engine number also apparently tallies with the report of the DTO. The seizure list also demonstrates that the Chesis number and Engine number of the vehicle apparently tallies with the report of the DTO and the pencil print of the Chesis number and Engine number.

¶21

In view of the above materials, the findings of the learned trial Court that the Engine number and Chesis number of the vehicle were erased raising a presumption of commission of offence of theft, in respect of the vehicle appears to be factually incorrect. Apparently, the vehicle was seized on 08.11.2017 and since then, it is lying in the police station and no effective order was passed as to the disposal of the vehicle.

¶22

The Apex Court in 2002 (8) SCC 525, Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, clearly held that valuable articles more particularly, a vehicle should not be allowed to be kept at the police station for a long time and the Court should pass order as to the disposal of the vehicle promptly. Even if it is assumed that the Court could not ascertain the ownership of the vehicle, the Court can even pass an interim custody pending enquiry as to the ownership.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

In the instant case, apparently, the vehicle was seized from the present petition, who claims to be owner of the vehicle and the materials produced in the case diary also suggest, that he is the owner and there is no any contrary material available on record. Therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have given the custody of the vehicle on the basis of the materials brought on record.

¶25

Having considered the documents produced and the materials in the case diary, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Court refusing to give custody of the vehicle to the petitioner deserves to be set-aside. accordingly I do so.

¶26

It is directed that the vehicle shall be given in custody of the petitioner on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and also an undertaking that the same shall be produced before the trial Court as an when required.

¶27

The criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶28

Send back the case diary.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Smita

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Kumar Rai v. State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Rai v. State of Assam

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

Saidul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Amiya Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Soyed Ahmed Laskar @ Saidul Islam Laskar @ Sadik Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Montu Suri @ Montu Churi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Basant Prasad and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Thaneswar Deka and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.