Dismissed

Mohd Haneef v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC1 Apr 2013C482/261/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside orders rejecting a plea for release of a seized tractor. The court held the applicant lacked locus standi as he was not the registered owner. It left the matter open for the registered owner to seek release on bond.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; liberty reserved for registered owner to move for release on security.

Mohd Haneef Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors. — Property and Title | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 261 of 2013

¶2

Mohd. Haneef …………. Applicant

¶3

versus

¶4

State of Uttarakhand & others …………. Respondents

¶5

Mr. B.C. Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant / petitioner. Mr. P.S. Saun, AGA for respondents no. 1, 2 and 3.

¶6

Hon’ble U.C. Dh [ yani J.,

¶7

By way of present petition / application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant / petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, whereby applicant’s application for release of tractor was dismissed. The applicant also seeks to set aside the order dated 10^th December 2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 278 of 2012, whereby the revision directed against the order dated 07.11.2012 was also dismissed .

¶8

An FIR was lodged at the instance of the Supply Inspector, Kashipur on 19.01.2012 against the driver of tractor-trolley No. URN 5221. The same was registered as Case Crime No. 31 of 2012 in respect of offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The allegation in nutshell was that 296 bags of rice were being carried by the driver of the said tractor-trolley to unknown destination. The said trial is pending before the court concerned.

¶9

¶10

In the meanwhile, an application was moved by Mohd. Haneef (applicant) on 05.11.2012 for release of tractor bearing registration no. URN 5221. The said application was rejected by learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 07.11.2012. Aggrieved by the said order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, a criminal revision no. 278 of 2012 was preferred on behalf of the revisionist, which criminal revision was dismissed on the sole ground that the applicant / revisionist Mohd. Haneef was not the registered owner of the tractor-trolley in question. The registered owner of the vehicle did not come forward for the release of his vehicle and consequently the application of Mohd. Haneef (revisionist) was dismissed, which order was perfectly in order and is not interferrable.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner submitted that the vehicle should have been released in favour of applicant Mohd. Haneef. The said argument of learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner is misconceived, in as much as the locus of Mohd. Haneef was not disclosed. Who was he? How was he related to the vehicle in question? Did the registered owner of the vehicle authorize him to move for release of the tractortrolley? An effort was made by learned counsel to show that the previous owner of the tractor-trolley sold the same to the applicant Mohd. Haneef and a sale letter was executed on behalf of Jagjit Singh on 13.11.2009. The said sale letter has no validity in the eyes of law. An application should have been moved before the transport authority to get the vehicle transferred in the name of Mohd. Haneef,

¶12

¶13

but no such paper was filed to show that the same was infact done by Jagjit singh. Unless the vehicle is transferred to Mohd. Haneef, he has no locus to move for release of such vehicle. In other words, Mohd. Haneef was not the registered owner of the vehicle. It is on this ground alone that the learned revision court did not entertain the application of the applicant / revisionist. There is no infirmity in the said order.

¶14

Application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. moved for setting aside the orders is dismissed.

¶15

It is however made clear that if the registered owner of the vehicle (Jagjit Singh s/o Inder Singh r/o Kashipur Road, Rudrapur) moves for the release of said vehicle, the same shall be allowed by the court below on usual terms i.e. on executing personal bond by the registered owner to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and on giving an undertaking by him that the vehicle in question shall be produced by him, if and when required by the investigating officer during the course of investigation and thereafter by the court concerned, upon submission of charge sheet.

¶16

Dt. April 01, 2013. Negi

Mohd Haneef v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Haneef v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

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

Rajeev Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Pradeep Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Makhan Lal @ Lalta Prasad Vs Smt. Kanyawati and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Verma and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others