Orissa High Court
Gouri Shankar Sabat vs State Of Orissa on 9 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999CRILJ1779, 1999(I)OLR248
Author: C.R. Pal
Bench: C.R. Pal
JUDGMENT C.R. Pal, J.
1. In this revision the petitioner assails the order dated 27.11.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khallikote, Ganjam in U.C. No. 293 of 1997.
2. The facts of the case which have given rise to this revision may be stated as follows :
The O.I.C., Rambha Police Station while patrolling near Sabulia railway check-gate searched a vehicle bearing registration No. OR02E-4822 and found that the vehicle was carrying India made foreign liquor. Ramesh Chandra Behera, the driver of the vehicle and Trinath Swain were in that vehicle. It was stated by the driver that being directed by Trinath Swain, the salesman of Narayani Foreign Liquor Shop, he was carrying the liquor to Palur. On demand, neither the driver nor the other occupant of the vehicle could produce any licence or document for possessing and transporting the liquor. So the O.I.C. seized the vehicle and the cartoon containing the foreign liquor bottles and arrested the driver and the other occupant of the vehicle and forwarded them to Court on 23.11.1997. The present petitioner who claims to be the owner of the said vehicle moved the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote on 26.11.1997 Under Section 457, Cr. P.C. to release the vehicle in his favour. The learned Magistrate refused the prayer observing that there was no document before him to prove that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. He also observed that since the P.R. has not been filed, it is not known whether the petitioner, therefore, again moved the Court on 27.11.1997 furnishing the documents to establish his ownership over the vehicle, but the said petition was also rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 27.11.1997. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has come up with this revision.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the refusal to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner despite production of documents to show his ownership over the vehicle is highly illegal. It is also submitted that in view of the FIR case which reveals that the driver carried the contraband liquor in the vehicle concerned being directed by the other accused and in absence of any materials to attribute any specific role to the petitioner in transportation of the contraband articles, the learned Magistrate should not have refused the prayer of the petitioner on the surmise that the petitioner may figure as an accused in the case. The learned Additional Standing Counsel, however, argued in support of the impugned order. In the above context, it is noticed that the vehicle seized is a Mini truck which stands registered in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that the vehicle is lying outside exposed to sun and rain and unless it is released in favour of the petitioner, the same is likely to be damaged putting the petitioner to heavy loss. Considering the above submissions along with the undisputed fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle which is lying exposed to sun and rain. It is deemed proper to set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Magistrate to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on his executing an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakhs)to indemnify any loss or damage done to the seized vehicle while the same will be in his custody with the condition that the petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any illegal purpose or in any manner which is likely to reduce its value, shall keep the vehicle in good running condition and shall produce the vehicle before the Court whenever required.
Accordingly the impugned order is set aside. Revision allowed.