Quashed

Mohan Lal Parihar v. State

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2022CRLMP/1059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting an application for release of a seized tanker carrying aviation turbine fuel. Ruling that retaining the vehicle and fuel in the police station was illegal under the Explosives Act and posed safety risks, the court ordered release subject to furnishing securities.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.02.2022 is quashed; ADM to release seized tanker and ATF subject to petitioner furnishing two solvent sureties of Rs. 30 lacs each and a personal bond of Rs. 30 lacs.

Mohan Lal Parihar Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1059/2022

¶3

Mohan Lal Parihar S/o Shri Pokhar Lal Parihar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 114, Subhash Colony, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State, Through Pp

¶7

Station House Officer, Police Station, Kudi Bhagtasni, District Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Moti Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	S. K. Bhati,P. P.

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

07/03/2022

¶13

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed being aggrieved of the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Second), Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ADM’).

¶14

The facts appertain for the present case are that the SHO, Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur (West) intercepted a tanker No.RJ-19GE-2111 carrying Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) near Mogra bridge, Jodhpur under the apprehension of theft of oil.

¶15

The SHO found that 200 litres of liquid (oil) was available in a drum in another vehicle (pick up Registration No. RJ-19-GE6158) going with this tanker though the seal, etc. of the tanker were found intact.

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CRLMP-1059/2022]

¶18

The tanker in question along with 20,000 litres ATF was seized by the SHO concerned on 19.02.2022 under the accusation of theft of 200 litres of diesel. The pick-up with 200 litres of diesel too was seized. A case under the provisions of section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the tanker and the owner of the pick-up and certain other persons.

¶19

The petitioner owner of the tanker moved an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) and prayed that the tanker No.RJ-19-GE2111 and ATF locked therein be released on supurdaginama. 6. Learned ADM, rejected the petitioner’s application inter alia observing that the product loaded in the tanker is highly inflammable and there is no place/facility for storage of such huge quantity of petroleum product in the police station.

¶20

Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/driver of the vehicle in question was carrying the goods and petroleum products with all the requisite documents to supply them to the Jodhpur Air Force Station.

¶21

It is asserted that all the documents were in order and no case worth the name was made out qua the tanker, yet the police has illegally seized the vehicle in question. 9. He argued that learned ADM has rejected petitioner’s application on flimsy grounds which are absolutely unsustainable. He added that the fact that facility of storage of petroleum product was not there in the police station cannot be a reason to reject, petitioner’s application for release of the tanker and petroleum product.

¶22

(3 of 5)

¶23

[CRLMP-1059/2022]

¶24

He argued that the trial of the case against the driver of the tanker and other persons under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Indian Penal Code will take a considerably long time and if during the pendency of the trial, the tanker and petroleum product are kept seized, it would not only adversely affect the condition of the tanker but also the petroleum product apart from causing huge financial loss to the petitioner.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is theft of petroleum product from the tanker in question and the tanker will be required during trial. But he was not in a position to apprise the Court as to whether the present petitioner-owner of the tanker is accused in any manner or there is any case qua the tanker.

¶26

Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that as a matter of fact, the tanker was seized merely because 200 litres of petroleum products were found in separate pick-up/drum. According to him, if the best case of Investigating Officer is believed, no case is made out beyond theft of the 200 litres of diesel and thus, keeping the vehicle seized for an indefinite period is arbitrary. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that indisputably case against the accused at the best is ― theft of 200 litres of petroleum product. There is no allegation of adulteration or mixing or other malpractice so far as the product loaded in the tanker is concerned.

¶27

The separate trials under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code will take a considerably long time. If the vehicle and petroleum product are allowed to be kept seized, it will deplete the condition of the

¶28

(4 of 5)

¶29

[CRLMP-1059/2022]

¶30

tanker and may deteriorate the quality of petroleum product. Such continued seizure will pose eminent threat to life and property if the vehicle continues to be stationed unattended/seized in the police station.

¶31

That apart, such seizure and keeping highly inflammable product (diesel and ATF) in the police station would violate provisions of Explosive Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 16. The reasoning given by learned ADM is self-contradictory if not preposterous. This Court wonders that if it is not possible to keep the highly inflammable substance in the police station, then why the learned ADM has rejected the application to release the vehicle.

¶32

Be that as it may. In the opinion of this Court, keeping the vehicle and petroleum product in the police station is absolutely illegal and without authority of law.

¶33

For the reasons foregoing, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. succeeds. The order impugned dated 28.02.2022 passed by ADM is hereby quashed and set aside qua tanker No.RJ-19-GE2111.

¶34

The ADM shall issue requisite precept/order for release of the seized vehicle tanker No.RJ-19-GE-2111 along with product loaded therein however, subject to a condition that the petitioner furnishes two solvent sureties of Rs.30 lacs each and a personal bond of Rs.30 lac to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶35

In case exact measurement of the product lying in the subject tanker and sample of the tanker has not been taken, the same shall be taken by the Investigating Officer in the presence of some Officials of Indian Oil Corporation.

¶36

(5 of 5)

¶37

[CRLMP-1059/2022]

¶38

Stay application too stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶40

178-A.Arora/-

Mohan Lal Parihar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Parihar v. State

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

Surjo Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Mandot Vs State of Rajasthan

Nakhta Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gurbaksh Kaur Dhillon Vs State

Rajkumar Vs State of Rajasthan