AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 397 wordsS.C. Agarwal, J.—Rejoinder affidvit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard leaned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
This revision under Section 397/401 is directed against the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Vth Jaunary, (State Vs. Lallan Tiwary and others) in Case Crime No.420 of 2011 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 60 Ex. Act, Police Station Sikarara, District Jaunpur, whereby the application for release of Balero No.UP62T/4668 was rejected on the ground that the proceedings under Section 72 Excise Act are pending before the Collector.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the application for release of Balero was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the proceeding under Section 72 Excise Act are pending before the Collector. The revisionist is the registered owner of vehicle and has a right to claim its possession and Supurtagi. It is submitted that by keeping the Vehicle at the police station for a long time, is likely to diminish its value and vehicle may become junk by passage of time.
In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs.State of Gujrat, 2003 (46) ACC 223, it is not desirable that a motor vehicle be kept at the Police Station for a long time as that may result in the vehicle becoming junk. In these circumstances, the application for release should have been allowed by the trial Court subject to certain conditions.
In view of the aforesaid ruling of the Apex Court, there was no justification for the trial Court to reject the application for release. Vehicle should have been released by Magistrate in favour of its owner subject to adequate security and necessary conditions.
Therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
The revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 01.08.2011 is set aside.
Learned Magistrate is directed to release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of its registered owner on furnishing adequate security to its satisfaction subject to the following conditions:
(i) The revisionist shall not transfer or sale the vehicle in question to any person without permission of the Court.
(ii) The revisionist shall produce the aforesaid vehicle as and when directed by the Court or the District Magistrate at his own expenses.