Orissa High Court
Charubala Sasmal vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 8 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ1074, 2000(II)OLR57
Author: P.K. Patra
Bench: P.K. Patra
JUDGMENT P.K. Patra, J.
1. In this revision, petitioner Charubala Sasmal has prayed for setting aside the order dated 22.12.1998 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Paradip). Kujang in Misc. Case No. 61 of 1998 arising out of 2(a)CC No.114 of 1998 and to release the Maruti (Omni) Van bearing Registration Number OR-O5F-4863 in her custody.
2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle bearing Registration Number OR-O5F-4863 and the vehicle was for her personal use as well as for the purpose of being plied as a contract carriage. On 1.12.1998 the Excise staff, while on mobile duty searched the vehicle near the P.P.L. gate at Paradip and found eight plastic jerricans each containing fifty litres of country liquor and hence seized the vehicle for illegal transportation of liquor. On the report submitted by the Inspector of Excise, Jagatsinghpur (opposite party No.2) a case was registered bearing Number 2(a) CC 114 of 1998 in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (Paradip), Kujang. The petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 61 of 1998 under Section 457, Cr.P.C. praying for release of the seized vehicle, contending that she was in no way connected with illegal transportation of liquor in her vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that illicit liquor was being transported in the seized vehicle.
3. Shri. N.Behuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State were heard at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was in no way connected with illegal transportation of liquor since the driver of the vehicle had never been asked by the petitioner to make illegal transportation of liquor in her vehicle although he had been asked to ply the vehicle as a contract carriage. It was further contended that the vehicle has been kept in open space, exposed to sun and rain and its condition is deteriorating and hence it was urged that the seized vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner who is the registered owner thereof.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court Re : Gouri Shankar Sabat v. State of Orissa, reported in (1998) 14 OCR 583. In that case, which is similar to the present case, the seized vehicle was released in favour of the registered owner on his executing an indemnity bond for Rs.2 lakhs and with the conditions that he would not use the vehicle for any illegal purpose or in any manner which was likely to reduce its value and to keep the vehicle in good running condition and to produce the same before the Court whenever required.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decision referred to above, it would be expedient to direct release of the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is ordered that the seized vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner on her furnishing property security for Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujang and with the conditions that she will not use the vehicle for any illegal purpose or in any manner which is likely to reduce its value and shall keep the vehicle in good running condition and produce the same before the Court whenever required. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed.