1. Gourav Kumar Gupta 2. Rahul Kumar Gupta … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2023 1. Gourav Kumar Gupta 2. Rahul Kumar Gupta …. …Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand --------- …. ... Opp. Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 06/ dated 01.11.2023 The instant Cr. Revision has been preferred against the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in Taratand P.S. Case No. 26 of 2022 whereby the release application of the petitioners for the two vehicles has been rejected. 2. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Revision are that on 03.06.2022 at 06:30 the raid was carried out by the police party in regard to the illegal excavation of the sand and transportation of the same within P.S. Taratand and it was found that in village Jehanabad in the bank of Barakar river the two vehicles were found parked. One was JH-10U-9050 and another was JH-10AT-5892 and in both the vehicles 100 cft sand was loaded in each and both the 407 vehicles were left at the place occurrence by the driver of the same and this
Legal Reasoning
F.I.R. was lodged by the Circle Officer, Gandey Mr. Safi Alam which was registered on case crime No.26 of 2022 under Sections 379/414 read with 34 of I.P.C. and 4(1) (A)/4(1)/21/22 of Mines and Mineral (Development and 2 Regulation) Act, 1957, 4/54 of Jharkhand Mines and Minerals Concession Rules 2004 and Section 17 Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. 3. Both the vehicles were seized. Seizure memo of the same was also prepared on 03.06.2022. 4. On behalf of petitioners an application was moved before the court-below for release of these two vehicles bearing registration No. JH-10U-9050 and JH-10AT-5892 in which it is stated that both the petitioners are the registered owner of the vehicles seized in the said case. All the relevant papers relating to the vehicles are valid and update. The vehicle is commercial and if the same is not released in their favour,
Decision
they would suffer irreparable loss. In view of the above, prayed to release of the vehicle and in support of this application the registration certificate of JH-10AT-5892 Model No. 407/31 was also filed in which the name of the registered owner is shown Gourav Kumar Gupta who is petitioner No.1. The certificate-cum-policy was also filed of the same vehicle. The R.C. of the vehicle No. JH-10U-9050 is also on record in which registered owner is shown Rahul Kumar Gupta. The insurance tax receipts are also being annexed which are on the record of scanned copy of the L.C.R. 5. The court-below had also called for the report from the Police Station concerned. As per report of the Police Station concerned, both the petitioners are the owner of the same 3 vehicle and both the vehicles are in custody of the police station concerned. 6. It has been shown in the report that both the vehicles were required during investigation. 7. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the court-below, it is found that the court-below rejected the release application of the petitioners on the very ground that in view of the report of the police station concerned, the same were required in the investigation. 8. Though in the police report of the Police Station concerned, it is mentioned that the same were required for the investigation but nothing is mentioned for what purpose both the vehicles were required. The case property is only the sand property. The two vehicles were being used only for the purpose of transportation. If both the vehicles are detained in the police station concerned for a long period, there is possibility of being damaged of the same or the utility of the same may be reduced. Both the vehicles were the commercial. 9. The learned Spl. P.P. on behalf of the State has also submitted that the investigation has also not been concluded. 10. Even if the investigation has not been concluded if both the vehicles are required for any purpose, the same may be released with certain conditions directing the petitioners-owner of the vehicle to produce the same whenever the same were required during investigation, enquiry or trial 4 as well. The learned court-below on being satisfied that both the petitioners are the registered owner of both the vehicles is to release the vehicle laying down certain conditions in regard to the production of the same whenever the same were required in investigation, enquiry or trial and also direct the petitioners not to dispose of the vehicles during the pendency of the trial. Any other conditions which the trial court deems fit in the circumstances of the case taking into consideration the guideline as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujrat 2002 (10) SCC 283 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held: Para 5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as: (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; to pass appropriate (2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary; (3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same. Para 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. Para 7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be 5 used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. Para 13. For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 CrPC to impose any other appropriate condition. 11. In view of the above, this Cr. Revision deserves to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the court-below is set aside. 13. The learned court-below is directed to decide the release application of the petitioners afresh in view of the observation made by this Court and also taking into consideration the guideline laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai vrs. State of Gujrat 2002 (10) SCC 283 (supra). P.K.S (Subhash Chand, J.)