IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No. q’Lyl OF 2010 ’ l PETITIONER Umashanker Shrivas, S/o Abhayram Shrivas, aged about 4O years, 'R/o Purani Basti Korba, Thana, Tahsil and District- Korba (C.G.) Special Power of Attornay holder of M/s M. K. Gupta 85 Co., R/o M. P. Tyre WorksyNear Satya Automobile, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil and District — Korba (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Korba, District— Korba (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE @ HIGH COURT OF CHH SINGLE BENCH HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVAJ Cr.M.P. No.724/2010 Umashanker Shrivas Versus ’ The State of Chhattisgarh LPetition u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C.) PETITIONER RESPONDENT Appearance: Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra Ag‘rawal, Panel Lawyer for the State’ ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 24.09.2010) Heard. . This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba in Criminal Revision No.24/201O by which order dated 30.6.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba rejecting application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C preferred by the petitioner/applicant for interim custody of vehicle- Excavator on supurdnama, has been confirmed. . Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Excavator, which has been alleged to be used in the commission of offence, is owned by M/s. M.K. Gupta 85 Company, of which the applicant is ATTISGARH z BILASPUR authorized power of attorney holder. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegation of commission of offence is against certain person and it has been alleged that the Excavator owned by the said Company was taken and used for commission of offence. He also submits that the Directors of the Company are not accused in the alleged commission of offence and it is a case where the vehicle was taken on hire and then used for commission of offence of demolition of building. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even though the Company is the registered owner of the vehicle, owners being not the accused in the case, the learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the, vehicle is used in commission of offence and the investigation is not complete. Learned counsel further argues that the reasons assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the application for interim custody has been filed by the power of attorney holder of the Company of which there are as many as 8 partners and it would not be appropriate to release the vehicle on the application of the power of attorney holder as this may give rise to dispute. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the reasons assigned by the learned Courts below for not releasing the vehicle are just and proper. He submits that the vehicle is alleged to have been used in commission of a serious offence and further that the investigation is still going on and as the application has been filed not by the owners, but by the power of attorney holder of the Company, rejection of the application by the Courts below is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. Learned State counsel also argued that the vehicle, which has been seized does not bear any registration number and the vehicle which is claimed by the applicant is said to be bearing registration No. C.G. 12 F—/9152. Therefore, there is serious doubt about ownership of the Company with regard to seized Vehicle and, therefore, it would not be proper to released the vehicle. . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. . Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the orders passed by the Courts below, I am of the view that the reasons assigned for rejecting the application are not proper. It is not in dispute that owners of the vehicle are not accused persons. It has to be demonstrated as to how the seized vehicle is still required at the later stages of the investigation and rejection of the application only on the ground that the investigation is not complete, in the opinion of this Court is not sufficient to reject the application. In so far as filing of application by the power of attorney holder is concerned, in the absence of there being any dispute raised by any of the partners of the Company and there being specific power of attorney filed before the Court, such an apprehension is only hypothesis having no basis. Neither the accused persons who are alleged 'to have committed offence nor any other person is claiming interim custody of the vehicle. In this View of the matter taking into consideration that theregistration papers of the seized Excavator have been placed on record, in my considered opinion, it is a fit cae where the vehicle ought to be releasain favour of the applicant in the name of the Company. . Accordingly, the revision is allowed and it is ordered that the vehicle shall be released in favour of the petitioner along with registration book and insurance paper, on the condition of petitioner’s furnishing personal bond of Rs.5 lacs with 2 sureties of 2 lacs each. Before release of vehicle, the Magistrate shall ensure and the petitioner shall also submit before the Magistrate the relevant chassis and engine number recorded in the vehicle and in the registration paper. The petitioner shall keep the vehicle in his safe custody and no alteration shall be made. The vehicle shall be produced before the Court as and when directed, along with registration book and insurance paper. Sd/- Manindra M01” Judge n Shrivastava Praveen