Allowed

Nawab Khan v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC29 Apr 2015WPCRL/499/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted custody (supurdagi) of a seized pickup truck to the petitioner-owner, conditioned on executing a personal bond, refraining from transferring or altering the vehicle, and prohibiting its use in unlawful activities.

What did the court decide?

The Max Pick-up vehicle was directed to be given into the custody of the owner subject to conditions of producing it when required, not transferring it, and not using it for unlawful activities.

Nawab Khan Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others — Property and Title | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.499 of 2015

¶4

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

¶5

Nawab Khan .…….…… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Uttarakhand and others …………. Respondents

¶8

Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Arya, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Soun, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Kripal Singh Chaudhary, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondents.

¶9

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶10

Earlier, the writ petitioner filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no.1365 of 2015, in which the counter affidavit has already been filed by the State. Vide order dated 23.04.2015, the said application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a criminal writ petition, hence this petition.

¶11

The applicant, by means of present criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15.07.2014

¶12

¶13

and 29.09.2014, passed by respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 2 respectively.

¶14

As per challani report one Max Pick-Up bearing registration no. UK-04 CA-1102 was found carrying 2 logs of Sagaun Tree, on 23.08.2014, by a team comprising of forest officials. Accordingly, the Max Pick-up was seized. The same was confiscated by the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani Forest Division, Haldwani under Section 52A of the Indian Forest Act (Uttarakhand amendment), vide order dated 15.07.2014. An appeal was preferred before the Conservator of Forests, Western Circle Haldwani against the same. The Appellate Authority / Conservator of Forests, Western Circle, Uttarakhand, Haldwani dismissed the appeal no. 69 of 2013-14. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal writ petition has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioner.

¶15

It is undisputed fact that the writ petitioner is the owner of the Max Pick-up in question. Whereas the incident allegedly took place on 18.03.2014, it is the statement of learned counsel for the writ petitioner that no criminal complaint has been instituted against the writ petitioner by the forest authorities so far. Yet, learned counsel for the writ petitioner undertakes that the writ petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the forest authorities or the Court, if the same is released in his favour. It is highly unlikely that the forest officials will not file a criminal

¶16

¶17

complaint case against the writ petitioner in connection with the offence, which allegedly took place on 18.03.2014, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 26, 41, 42, 52 of the Indian Forest Act.

¶18

Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with such issue of disposal of property, time and again, holding that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case property in the custody of the police (in the instant case the forest department). In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 283 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” This Court is, therefore, of the view that Max Pick-up should be given in the supurdagi (custody) of it’s owner, subject to certain conditions.

¶19

Criminal writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The Max Pick-up is directed to be given in the supurdagi of it’s owner, subject to following conditions:

¶20

(i) The owner shall execute personal bond of rupees five lakh to the effect that he will produce the same before the Investigating Officer or the court concerned, if and when required to do so, failing which, he will be

¶21

¶22

required to pay such sum in favour of the State Government.

¶23

(ii) The owner shall neither sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer the Max Pick-up to any other person, nor change/alter it’s shape during the pendency of the criminal case against him.

¶24

(iii) The Max Pick-up shall not be used in any unlawful activity like illegal mining etc. If the Max Pick-up is found to be used for any unlawful purpose, this order of supurdagi shall stand withdrawn without reference to this Court. In that case, the forest department shall have the authority to seize the same once again.

¶25

With the directions as above, the criminal writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Rawat

¶27

Nawab Khan v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawab Khan v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

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

Anand Prakash Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Shailendra Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Avi Sharma and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Babar Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vinod Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Amit Chaudhary Vs Prahlad Singh