Allowed

Rajendra S/O Rattiram B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2019CRLMP/1903/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of impugned order refusing release of seized tractor and trolley. Petitioner was registered owner and no confiscation was pending. Court applied precedent Sundaresh Ambalal Desai and Laxman case to release vehicle subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12.3.2019 setting aside refusal to release tractor and trolley; directions for release subject to conditions of intact possession, identification, indemnity bond and surety bonds.

Rajendra S/O Rattiram B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1903/2019

¶3

Rajendra S/o Rattiram B/c Meena, R/o Pahadpura, Ps Sapotara, District Karauli.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mr. MP Jadaun For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Mehla Public Prosecutor

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶10

Order

¶11

01/04/2019

¶12

By this petition which is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is prayed that the order dated 12.3.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sapotra, District Karauli be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor and trolley bearing Registration No. RJ-34 RA 7618 to the petitioner.

¶13

The order passed by the court below whereby release of the vehicle on Supurdagi was refused has been assailed.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.60/2018, titled as Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan , decided on 6.4.2018, held that if a vehicle has been seized under the Provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act’), for 72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter, it is mandatory for him to report

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-1903/2019]

¶17

the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶18

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner at Bar that the petitioner is the registered owner and no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the Tractor and trolley and the same is case property of case FIR No. 90/2019 registered at Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli, for the offences under Section 379 IPC and Section 4/21 of MMDR Act.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as the same shall remain gather rust and shall remain unuseful.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

The Division Bench of this Court in Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) , has held as under:-

¶22

“In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee.”

¶23

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMP-1903/2019]

¶26

to release the Tractor and trolley seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-

¶27

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle so released intact and shall not change its identification.

¶28

b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

¶29

c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶30

(d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit.

¶31

Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.

¶32

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶33

Om/59

Rajendra S/O Rattiram B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra S/O Rattiram B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

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

Gorkhi Prasad Nagar S/O Yadram Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Rajendra @ Rajesh Agrawal S/O (Late) Shri Ram Agarwal Vs Smt Manju Agarwal S/O Late Shree Ballabh Prasad W/O Shri Rajendra @ Rajesh Agarwal

Dharam Pal S/O Shri Ruda Ram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Saroj Yadav W/O Shri R. K. Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Parashar S/O Shri Ramavatar Sharma B/C Barahaman Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ram Singh S/O Amrit Lal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan