Gopal Saini vs State Of Rajasthan

This Court on 4.12.2018 had passed the following order:-

"Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call the Forest Officer in this Court who had seized the vehicle.

List both the cases on 14.12.2018.

A copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, learned Public Prosecutor for onward transmission and necessary compliance."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that on 14.12.2018, the Forest Officer was not present.

Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that even though message was sent to the Forest Officer, he is again not present in the court today.

Due to absence of Forest Officer, this Court shall proceed to decide the present petition.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 5.9.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, be set aside, whereby the said court refused to release Tractor bearing Registration No. RJ 26 RA 8127 alongwith Trolley to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the order dated 3.11.2018 passed by revisional court whereby order dated 5.9.2018 was affirmed, be also set aside.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that the petitioner is registered owner and no confiscation proceedings are pending qua the tractor trolley and the same are case property of case FIR No.72/1993 dated 31.8.2018 registered at Forest Department, Tonk for the offences under Section 32, 33, 41 and 42 of Forest Act.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, to contend that the Supreme court has held that the vehicle should not be permitted to remain parked in the police station as same shall gather rust and shall not remain useful.

Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), present petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to release the tractor and trolley seized as case property by imposing following conditions:

a) That the petitioner shall keep the vehicle and trolley so released intact and shall not change their identification.

b) That the petitioner shall produce the vehicle and trolley as and when trial court requires the same for proposed identification of the case property.

c) That the petitioner shall execute Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(d) The trial court is empowered to impose any or other conditions in the Supurdaginama/indemnity bond and surety bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties, which it may deem fit.

Needless to say, trial court shall make verification that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle.