HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1010/2019 [ENTITY] S/o Prabhudayal B/c Meena, R/o Dharanwas Ps Dausa Dist. Dausa Raj. Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] Through Learned Pp, Raj. Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. [ENTITY] For Respondent(s) : Ms. [ENTITY] PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY]
-/Order/-
28/02/2019 The present petition has been filed under [SECTION] [ACT], praying that the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor bearing Registration No. RJ 29 RB 3573 alongwith Trolley bearing Registration No. RJ 29 EV 0464 to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the order dated 24.12.2018 passed by revisional court whereby the order dated 13.12.2018 was affirmed, 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 6.4.2018, 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, (2 of 3) [[CASE NUMBER]] he is mandatorily required 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 two courts below whereby release of the vehicle on Supurdagi was refused have been assailed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that the petitioner is the registered owner and no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the Tractor and Trolley and the same are case property of case FIR No.337/2018, registered at Police Station Bonli, Sawai Madhopur, for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] of [ACT].
The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 allowed and the trial court is directed to release the Tractor (3 of 3) [[CASE NUMBER]] alongwith Trolley seized as case property by imposing following conditions:-
a) That the petitioner shall keep the Tractor and Trolley so released intact and shall not change their identification.
b) That the petitioner shall produce the Tractor and Trolley as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.
c) That the petitioner 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 petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit.
Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.
([ENTITY] Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)