Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rakesh Kumar S/O Ramdhan Verma vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 November, 2020
(1 of 5) [CRLR-1056/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1.S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1056/2020
Rakesh Kumar S/o Ramdhan Verma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Gangapura Ps Dattwas, Distt. Tonk Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
2.S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4523/2020 Raig Singh S/o Rajje, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Muwavali, Tehsil Bayana Distt. Bharatpur Raj.
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
3.S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4526/2020 Radha W/o Dilip, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Banki Baajna Kala Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli Raj.
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
4.S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4542/2020 Shrikant Sharma S/o Shrikrishan Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Near Mudiya Palace Chetram Colony, Ward No. 4, Hindaun City, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:47:17 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLR-1056/2020]
5.S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4575/2020 Shailendra ( Shailesh) S/o Jitendra, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Tiwara Ghosal, Ps Nai Mandi, Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli, Raj.
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
6.S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5170/2020 Bacchan Singh S/o Hazari Lal, R/o In Front Of Stadium Aravali Nagar Karauli Distt. Karauli Raj.
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
7.S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5284/2020 Madan Mohan S/o Batti Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Tursangpura Tehsil Sapotara Distt. Karauli Raj.
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
8.S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5286/2020 Ratiram S/o Ramphool, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Lohera, Tehsil Karauli Distt. Karauli Raj.
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:47:17 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLR-1056/2020]
9.S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5356/2020 Yashraj Singh Son Of Shri Madan Mohan Singh, Resident Of Near Madan Mohan Ji Mandir, Chikna Farsh, Karauli, Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishan Swami, Mr. Vishvesh Gupta, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Kushwah, Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R.Meena, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 05/11/2020 Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the police seized the vehicle(s) mentioning it to be under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") treating it as unclaimed property, learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioner(s) seeking possession of the said vehicle on the ground that it is unclaimed vehicle(s).
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner(s) is a registered owner of the vehicle(s) and therefore, the proceedings under Section 38 of the Act could not have been undertaken and even if, the same was undertaken; once, the learned Magistrate has come to knowledge that the vehicle is duly registered and the registered owner is before it for claiming the same, there was no occasion for not releasing the said vehicle. (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:47:17 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLR-1056/2020] It is also submitted that the provisions of Section 38 of the Act cannot be misused in such a manner to deprive the petitioner(s) of its ownership and title of the vehicle(s), which has been seized wrongfully by the police.
I have considered the submissions as above. A bare look at the provisions of Section 38 of the Act would be relevant, hence, the same is quoted as under:
"38. Police officers to take charge of unclaimed property - (1) It shall be the duty of every police officer to take charge of unclaimed property, and to furnish an inventory thereof to the Police Station having jurisdiction.
(2) The manner of disposal of such property shall be such as may be prescribed.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section "property" shall mean any movable property, money or valuable security."
Thus, it is at the stage when the vehicle(s) is seized, that property may be treated as unclaimed property. However, once an application has been filed before the Court informing about the vehicle being an unregistered ownership of the claimant and he claims the said property, the provisions of Section 38 of the Act would automatically cease to apply and the learned Magistrate could not have avoided the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle(s). Thus, the order(s) impugned herein passed by the learned Magistrate to the said effect is wholly misconceived the provisions aforesaid and is accordingly set aside.
The law regarding release of the vehicle has been explained by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat: (2002) 10 SCC 283, and by this Court also in the case of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:47:17 PM) (5 of 5) [CRLR-1056/2020] No.2723/2019: Asharam Versus State of Rajasthan, decided on 3.2.2020 along with other connected petitions.
Accordingly, these revision petitions are allowed and the respective vehicles having registration Nos.RJ-26-RB-6076 & RJ- 26-EV-0686 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ-05-RC-5476 & RJ-05-EV- 0032 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ-34-RB-0414 & RJ-34-EV-0799 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ-05-RB-1121 & RJ-34-EV-0500 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ-34-RB-0432 & RJ-34-EV-0800 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ-34-RB-0748 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ-34-RB-2015 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ-34-RB-0142 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ- 34-RB-0713 (Tractor with Trolley), involved in these matters shall be released on the following terms:
a) The concerned Police Station shall release the offending vehicle(s) to the person(s), who is the registered owner(s) of the vehicle(s) alone.
b) A personal security of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Court to which the concerned Police Station is attached, shall be submitted for the purpose of release of the vehicle(s).
c) The petitioner(s) shall furnish the photographs of the vehicle(s) showing its number and colour etc.
d). At the time of release, the petitioner(s) shall also give an undertaking to the effect that vehicle(s) shall not be used for any illegal purpose and if so found, the concerned owner shall be personally liable.
A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J NITIN / (Downloaded on 11/11/2020 at 09:47:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)