Allowed

Jamalu v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC24 Jan 2018CRLMP/6515/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petitioner's application to release a seized tractor. Distinguishing a previous bench holding, the Court ruled that a jurisdictional bar exists only upon receipt of intimation regarding confiscation proceedings. As no such report was received, the Court ordered the release of the vehicle subject to furnishing a bank guarantee and sureties to prevent alienati

What did the court decide?

The seized tractor with troli was ordered to be released on 'supurdgi' to the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 3 lakh and 'Supurdginama' with two sureties of like amount.

Jamalu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 6515 / 2017

¶3

Jamalu S/o Naazar B/c Mev, R/o Mev Mohalla, Radha Nagri, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Jain

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

¶11

Order

¶12

24/01/2018

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Public

¶14

Prosecutor.

¶15

On perusal of the relevant documents and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found that Tractor bearing registration No. RJ-05-R-9953 alongwith Troli, Engine No. NXC-229617 Chasis No. BSN-227469 was seized by P.S. Bhiwadi, District Alwar in FIR No. 503/2014 registered for the offence under Sections 379 and 120-B IPC and Sections 41 and 42 Forest Act. The application moved by the petitioner, being registered owner of the said Tractor alongwith Troli, was rejected by learned trial Court vide order dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure-1) mainly on the ground that orders issued by National Green Tribunal and Hon’ble Supreme Court have directed to take strict view in regard to the release of such vehicle.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMP-6515/2017]

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the observation made by trial Court that no report in regard to the seized vehicle has been received from the Forest Department and hence, the Court has jurisdiction to dispose of this application.

¶19

In Harun Vs. State of Rajasthan (DB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 76/2014) , it was held by Division Bench of this Court that there was no bar on the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to release the Vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

In Harun’s case (supra), the Division Bench held as under:-

¶21

“21. We accordingly hold that vehicle seized under the provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 cannot be released during the pendency of trial on supurdgi to the registered owner by the Magistrate, where the trial is pending, in view of specific bar to jurisdiction of Court under Section 52C of the Act. But, the bar to jurisdiction operates only when a Magistrate receives intimation under sub-Secton (4) of Section 52 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation.”

¶22

In view of above, when no report regarding confiscation proceeding in respect of the vehicle was received by the trial Court, it was well within its authority to release the vehicle on the terms and conditions which it deems fit it proper.

¶23

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 290 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the application for disposal of the vehicles should be expeditiously disposed off. Keeping the vehicle seized & kept in police station will cause deterioration in the condition of the vehicle which is ultimately a national loss. However, to take a strict view in order to curb any further occurrence of such offence,

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMP-6515/2017]

¶26

condition may be imposed regarding furnishing of bank guarantee.

¶27

In view of above, petition is allowed and the Tractor bearing registration No. RJ-05-R-9953 alongwith Troli seized in FIR No. 503/2014 is released on the application filed by the accusedpetitioner subject to furnishing, bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by the petitioner registered owner of the vehicle before the concerned Court.

¶28

The misc. petition preferred by the accused-petitioner is allowed. The order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set-aside. It is directed that Tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-05-R-9953 alongwith Troli shall be delivered to the petitioner on ’supurdgi’ on his furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, “Supurdginama” in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, undertaking to produce the vehicle in question before the concerned court as and when required and shall keep the condition of the vehicle intact and shall not transfer, mortgage or otherwise alienate the vehicle or damage it and change its shape in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall also furnish photographs of the vehicle showing its number, colour etc. It is made clear that in future if the vehicle is found to have been used in similar offence, the same would be liable to be confiscated.

¶29

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI) J.

¶30

Arun/25

Jamalu v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamalu v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Dayal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mukesh Gujar Vs State of Rajasthan

Madhu Sudan Kabra Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Tejpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Deepu Panchal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Prabhu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp