IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.647 of 2008 Onkar Nath Sharma, son of Nawal Sharma, Mohalla East Lohanipur, PS Kadam Kuan, Dist. Patna – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Commissioner , Department of Home, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4) The Supdt. Of Police, West Champaran at Bettiah. 5) The Subdivisional Police Officer, Sadar, Bettiah. 6) The Officer Incharge, Mufassil Thana, Bettiah. 7) Zafar Javed, Sub Inspector of Police, at present posted in the district of West Champaran through S.P. Bettiah – Respondents. 5 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This writ petition has been filed claiming damages on account of the fact that the petitioner’s truck was illegal seized. The truck bearing registration no. BR 1G 4972 was seized by respondent no. 7 on the ground that respondent no. 7 found that the truck in question was running with fake number. It also transpired that another truck belonging to the petitioner bearing registration no. BR 1F 3558 was seized in connection with Gopalpur PS Case No. 4/2006 as it was found that it was carrying forest produce i.e. timber. Non-FIR, dated 10.10.2006 was instituted by respondent no.7. The petitioner prayed for release of the truck before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who passed an order rejecting the prayer for release of the truck. The petitioner filed a revision application which was heard and disposed of by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC V, West Champaran on 14.8.2007 setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate holding that the truck was wrongly seized on baseless and frivolous ground and 2 directed for its release. The Additional Sessions Judge also directed that copy of the order may be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah as a result of which action was taken against respondent no.7. A departmental proceeding was initiated against respondent no.7 which has now concluded. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that he may be awarded damages as his truck was found in a very bad condition after the order of release. The petitioner filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who directed that an enquiry should be made. The enquiry report indicates that several parts of the truck were missing. Learned counsel for the State submits that the truck was lying just by the side of the police station where most of the seized vehicles are placed as the Thana is very small and has no compound of its own. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the truck was lying within the police station compound. It is submitted that it cannot be said that respondent no.7 was responsible for the theft. This court takes judicial notice of the fact that the vehicles which are seized in a criminal case or for any other reason are kept at the police station or out side it and are left unattended to rot. There is no mechanism to guarantee that they are well looked after and safe or protected against theft before their release. The State should take some action to ensure that such seized vehicles are kept in a closed place such as pen age so as to 3 keep them secure. After all it is a loss of national wealth to permit machines t o be reduced literally to scrap. This court, however, cannot hold respondent no.7 or the State fully responsible for the condition of the truck, in question and, therefore, this court is not inclined to grant damages in this case. This writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may take recourse to any appropriate measure for making good his losses as provided under the law. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)