Allowed

Girdhari Son of Shri Hari v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2020CRLMP/5235/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order refusing to release a seized registered vehicle treated as unclaimed property under the Rajasthan Police Act. The High Court held that once ownership is claimed, the section ceases to apply, allowing release under Cr.P.C. rules.

What did the court decide?

The seized vehicle (RJ-05-GA-5259) to be released to the registered owner upon submission of personal security of Rs. 5,00,000 and furnishing of vehicle photographs and undertaking.

Girdhari Son of Shri Hari Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CRLMP-5235/2020]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5235/2020

¶5

Girdhari Son Of Shri Hari, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Mahudalapur, Ps Nai Mandi Hindaun District Karauli

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶9

Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Circle Hindaun City, District Karauli

¶10

S.h.o, Police Station Nai Mandi Hindauncity, District Karauli (Raj)

¶11

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malkhan Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R.Meena, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

06/11/2020

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the police seized the vehicle(s) mentioning it to be under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) treating it as unclaimed property, learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner(s) seeking possession of the said vehicle on the ground that it is unclaimed vehicle(s).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner(s) is a registered owner of the vehicle(s) and therefore, the proceedings under Section 38 of the Act could not have been undertaken and even if, the same was undertaken; once, the learned Magistrate has come to knowledge that the vehicle is duly regis-

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-5235/2020]

¶19

tered and the registered owner is before it for claiming the same, there was no occasion for not releasing the said vehicle.

¶20

It is also submitted that the provisions of Section 38 of the Act cannot be misused in such a manner to deprive the petitioner(s) of its ownership and title of the vehicle(s), which has been seized wrongfully by the police.

¶21

I have considered the submissions as above.

¶22

A bare look at the provisions of Section 38 of the Act would be relevant, hence, the same is quoted as under:

¶23

“ 38. Police officers to take charge of unclaimed property – (1) It shall be the duty of every police officer to take charge of unclaimed property, and to furnish an inventory thereof to the Police Station having jurisdiction.

¶24

(2) The manner of disposal of such property shall be such as may be prescribed. Explanation :- For the purpose of this section “property” shall mean any movable property, money or valuable security.”

¶25

Thus, it is at the stage when the vehicle(s) is seized, that property may be treated as unclaimed property. However, once an application has been filed before the Court informing about the vehicle being an unregistered ownership of the claimant and he claims the said property, the provisions of Section 38 of the Act would automatically cease to apply and the learned Magistrate could not have avoided the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle(s). Thus, the order(s) impugned herein passed by the learned Magistrate to the said effect is wholly misconceived the provisions aforesaid and is accordingly set aside.

¶26

The law regarding release of the vehicle has been explained by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal De-

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CRLMP-5235/2020]

¶29

sai & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat : (2002) 10 SCC 283 , and by this Court also in the case of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2723/2019 : Asharam Versus State of Rajasthan , decided on 3.2.2020 along with other connected petitions.

¶30

Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the respective vehicle having registration Nos.RJ-05-GA-5259 (Truck), involved in this matter shall be released on the following terms:

¶31

a) The concerned Police Station shall release the offending vehicle(s) to the person(s), who is the registered owner(s) of the vehicle(s) alone.

¶32

b) A personal security of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Court to which the concerned Police Station is attached, shall be submitted for the purpose of release of the vehicle(s).

¶33

c) The petitioner(s) shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle(s) showing its number and colour etc.

¶34

d). At the time of release, the petitioner(s) shall also give an undertaking to the effect that vehicle(s) shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the concerned owner shall be personally liable.

¶35

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶36

NITIN /

Girdhari Son of Shri Hari v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhari Son of Shri Hari 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

X a Victim Vs State of Rajasthan

Gandharv Singh S/O Shri Ramchitra B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Natwar Lal S/O Madan Mohan B/C Bairagi Vs State of Rajasthan

Nafees S/O Latif B/C Gaddi Muslman Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinita W/O Late Fateh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Prajapat S/O Shri Mangi Lal Prajapat B/C Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan