HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3989/2018 [ENTITY] S/o Hotam B/c Thakur , R/o Village Mairtha, Police Station Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. Rj-05-Rb-7989) Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. [ENTITY] For Respondent(s) : Mr. [ENTITY], P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Judgment / Order 19/07/2018 The present petition has been filed under [SECTION] [ACT], praying that the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, No.4, Bharatpur, be set aside, whereby the said Court refused to release tractor bearing registration No.RJ-05-RB- 7989 along with the trolley to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the revisional Court below be also set aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in bunch of petitions, lead case being [CASE NUMBER], titled as [PRECEDENT], a Division Bench of this Court on 06.04.2018, has held that if a vehicle has been seized under the [ACT] (for short '[ACT]'), for 72 hours competent Officer can retain the vehicle and thereafter, he is mandatorily required (2 of 3) [[CASE NUMBER]] to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Division Bench has held as under:-
"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."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not willing to compound the offence, as he has decided to contest the case.
The orders passed by the Courts below whereby release of the tractor and trolley on Supurdagi was refused have been assailed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that no confiscation proceedings is pending, qua the tractor and trolley and the same are case property of case FIR No.115/2018, registered at Police Station Chiksana District Bharatpur for commission of offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] and under [SECTION] of [ACT].
The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon [PRECEDENT], to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.
Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra), present petition is (3 of 3) [[CASE NUMBER]] allowed and the trial court is directed to release the tractor and trolley seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-
"a) That the petitioners shall keep the tractor and trolley , so released intact and shall not change their identification.
b) That the petitioners shall produce the tractor and trolley as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.
c) That the petitioners shall execute Supurdaginama/ indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(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 petitioners and sureties, which it may deem fit."
Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioners are registered owner of the tractor and trolley.
([ENTITY] ashok Powered by [ACT] (www.tcpdf.org)