Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that FIR No.04 dated 07.01.2013, under Sections 21 (1) and 4 (1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development Act), 1957 read with Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, wherein, the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-72-1201 registered in the name of the petitioner was taken into police possession alongwith other vehicles. The petitioner moved an application for release of the vehicle bearing registration No.HP- 72-1201 on superdari through his power of attorney claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle.1
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. Since the vehicle in question, being a source of livelihood of the petitioner and its non-release would affect the entire family, it would be in the interest of justice to release the vehicle in question on superdari. Since another vehicle involved in the same very FIR has already been released on superdari by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ad hoc, Ropar vide order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-5), in order to maintain parity, this vehicle is also required to be released on superdari. Keeping in view the above and the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned orders (Annexure P- 2) and (Annexure P-4) are set aside. The vehicle in question is ordered to be released on superdari to its registered owner or his duly authorized CRM M-9981 of 2013 5 representative, on furnishsing superdari/indemnity bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqua/Duty Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib specifically subject to the condition that it will not be involved in the activity of taking away of mines minerals etc. during the pendency of trial. The Court will be at liberty to impose other conditions which it may deem fit and proper.
Print Page
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. Since the vehicle in question, being a source of livelihood of the petitioner and its non-release would affect the entire family, it would be in the interest of justice to release the vehicle in question on superdari. Since another vehicle involved in the same very FIR has already been released on superdari by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ad hoc, Ropar vide order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-5), in order to maintain parity, this vehicle is also required to be released on superdari. Keeping in view the above and the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned orders (Annexure P- 2) and (Annexure P-4) are set aside. The vehicle in question is ordered to be released on superdari to its registered owner or his duly authorized CRM M-9981 of 2013 5 representative, on furnishsing superdari/indemnity bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqua/Duty Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib specifically subject to the condition that it will not be involved in the activity of taking away of mines minerals etc. during the pendency of trial. The Court will be at liberty to impose other conditions which it may deem fit and proper.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pragya Raj Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2013
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Citation; 2013 CR L J(NOC) 639 (P&H)
Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" in short) for quashing of order dated 23.01.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib vide which the application of the petitioner for release of vehicle on superdari has been dismissed and order dated 15.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rupnagar whereby the revision petition filed by petitioner against the order dated 23.01.2013, has been dismissed.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that FIR No.04 dated 07.01.2013, under Sections 21 (1) and 4 (1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development Act), 1957 read with CRM M-9981 of 2013 2 Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, wherein, the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-72-1201 registered in the name of the petitioner was taken into police possession alongwith other vehicles. The petitioner moved an application for release of the vehicle bearing registration No.HP- 72-1201 on superdari through his power of attorney claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle. The said application was dismised by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib vide order dated 23.01.2013 (Annexure P-2) and the revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rupnagar. Hence, this petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that number of vehicles were taken into police possession in the above said FIR. One of the vehicles bearing registration No.PB-32-K-7646 was also taken into police possession which had been released on superdari by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Adhoc, Ropar vide order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-5). The learned counsel further contended that in this case, the investigation has not yet been completed, the presentation of challan will take a long time and conclusion of the trial will also take further more time. The learned counsel further contended that if the vehicle in question was allowed to remain unused in police custody, it will deteriorate and its value will depricate. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss and injury also. The petitioner was earning livelihood from the use of this vehicle on which the family of the petitioner CRM M-9981 of 2013 3 is surviving. The learned counsel further claimed parity on the ground that another vehicle taken into possession in the same very case has already been released on superdari.
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the impugned orders (Annexures P-2) and (Annexure P-4) are legal and valid. Since the vehicle is involved in an offence under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with Section 188 of the IPC, the vehicle in question should not be released on superdari. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
Although, the vehicle in question is involved in the aforesaid case, the petitioner is registered owner of the same, the custody of vehicle in question with the police will be of no use. It will be pre-mature, at this stage, to conclude that the vehicle in question could be confiscated in the criminal case as it will be difficult for the prosecution to procure the vehicle, if it is released on superdari. This assertion is not acceptable. Such a finding can be recorded only after appreciation of the evidence at the end of trial.
The disposal of case property is governed by the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said provision was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 wherein it was held that power under Section 451 of the Code should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. In view of the dictum laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), it would be appropriate to release the vehicle. It would serve CRM M-9981 of 2013 4 following purposes:
(i)owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused;
(ii)Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
(iii)If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial at every date. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the vehicle in detail and Court can also direct its production on any date, if required.
(iv)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. Since the vehicle in question, being a source of livelihood of the petitioner and its non-release would affect the entire family, it would be in the interest of justice to release the vehicle in question on superdari. Since another vehicle involved in the same very FIR has already been released on superdari by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ad hoc, Ropar vide order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-5), in order to maintain parity, this vehicle is also required to be released on superdari. Keeping in view the above and the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned orders (Annexure P- 2) and (Annexure P-4) are set aside. The vehicle in question is ordered to be released on superdari to its registered owner or his duly authorized CRM M-9981 of 2013 5 representative, on furnishsing superdari/indemnity bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqua/Duty Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib specifically subject to the condition that it will not be involved in the activity of taking away of mines minerals etc. during the pendency of trial. The Court will be at liberty to impose other conditions which it may deem fit and proper. [ Paramjeet Singh ]
April 23, 2013 Judge parveen kumar
No comments:
Post a Comment