HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No.538/2009 Ajit Singh Gurudutta, S/o Shri Gurumukh Singh Gurudutta, 45 years, R/o Stafion Road, Mahasamund, P.S. SE Distt. Mahasamund-(C:G.). Petitiener Respondent Versus State,.of Chhattisgarh, Through: P.S. Kotwali Mahasamund (C.G.). MISC. CRIMINAL PETITION U/S 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. — (SB SHoa'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri PrafuU N. Bharat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Gupfa, P.L. for fhe State/respondeat. ORAL-ORDER (Passedoa 20/10/2009) This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') for quashment of the order dated 17/10/08 passed by the First Addition'alSessions Judge Mahasamund in criminal revision affirming the order dated 4/9/08 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund in Cr. M.J.C. No. 97/08 whereby by leamed Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the application for interim custody of 6 trucks involving in commission ofthe crime filed by present petitioner. 'Order is challenged on the ground that although vehicles are registered in fhe naine of Chandresh Thakkar but same have been purchased by the petidoner therefore, the present petitioner enytlement for possession of the vehicles. .Learaed counsel for the-parties are heard. 'y'b, is best 2-- ^^ 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Sunderbhai Ainbalal Desai. Betitioner v, State of Gujarat, Resoondent reported in AIR2003 SC 638 in which Apex Court has issued directions for release of vehicle and to save-the vehicle for further detoreation and issued certain directions relatihg to the release of vehicle to owner, Insurance Company or 3rd person and lastly for auction. 5. In the present case according to the argument on behalf of the petitioner and order impUgned the vehicles are registered in the name of one Chandresh Thakkar he had entered into an agreement on 16/12/07 with the Food Corporation of India for transportation of rice. Certain offence has set to be coininitted during the course of transportation. Order dated 4/9/09 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund reveals that present petitioner had deposited certain instqllments to the Finance Company froin whom loan has been taken by the Chandresh Thakkar on7/4/07 and 7/5/07 it shows that present pedtioner has started depositing instaUments in fhe month of April -2007 but Chandresh Thakkar has applied for transportation of the rice by aforesaid vehicles on 6/12/07 much after the date of alleged payment of the installment, it suffice the claim ofthe petitioner, in the present petition I, do not find any locus-standi of the petitioner for interiin custody of the vehicle alleged owner or Insurance Company or Financerlhave not applied for interim custody of the vehicle. In case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) Apex Court has issued certain diiiection to sawe the property/vehicles Paras 17 8s 18 reads as under:- ''^^^, ^-% % 6. 17. In our wew, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to fceep such seized velv.cles at the police stations for a long period. Itisforthe Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by takinQ appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for retuth of the scdd vehicles, it required at any point oftime. This can be done pending hearing of applications for retum ofsuch vehicles. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance compwuj or by third person, then such velv.de may be prdered to be auctioned by the Court. Ifthesaid vehicle is'.insured with the insurance company then. insurance company be infonned by the Curt to take possessi'on of ths vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. It Insurance Company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction ofthe Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of sixmonths from the date ofproduction of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs 6f the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared. In case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) Apex Court has not held that property should be given to any person even having no interest over the property but has held that lastly property may be auctioned. In absence of any interest of petitioner over the property, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned for quashing the order impugned. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed. and it is hereby dismissed. However, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund is directed to issue notices to the alleged owner Chandresh Thakkar, financer and Insurance Company and lastly the vehicle fflay be sold in auction in accordance with the ^ "eir <A ^ directions issued by the Apex Court incase of Siuiderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). Sd/- T.P. Shayma Judge