Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dharmi S/O Heera vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2020
COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 948/2020
Dharmi S/o Heera, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Gular Ghata,
Dhandhupura, Tehsil And Distt. Karauli Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
2. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1038/2020
Lakhan Lal S/o Shri Birju Lal Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Jinhahpur, Nimli Kalan Distt. Sawai Madhopur Raj. Owner Of
Tractor No. Rj-25-Rb-8623 Along With Trolly.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Station House Officer (Sho), Police Station Maan Town
Sawai Madhopur Raj.
3. Asst. Mining Engineer Sawai Madhopur, Raj.
----Respondents
3. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4885/2020
Ramphool S/o Prabhu Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Gopalpura Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada Distt. Sawai
Madhopur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Incharge Officer, Mining Department Sawai Madhopur,
Raj.
3. Distt. Transport Officer, Sawai Madhopur, Raj.
4. S.h.o. Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, Distt. Sawai
Madhopur Raj.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 05/11/2020 at 09:33:34 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-948/2020]
4. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5299/2020
Ramswaroop S/o Shri Shyonath, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Village Dhani Bhojwa Wali Kalikhad, Teh. Nagal, Dist. Dausa
(Owner Of Trolley Bearing Chesis No. Rj25Tc19511160602
Bearing Chesis No. Rj25Tc19511160602)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Deendayal Khandelwal Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka Mr. Aditya Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 04/11/2020 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 05/11/2020 at 09:33:34 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-948/2020] 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 05/11/2020 at 09:33:34 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLR-948/2020] 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-34-RB-1159 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ-25-RB-8623 (Tractor with Trolley), RJ- 25-RB-8736 (Tractor), RJ-25-RB-8736 & RJ-25-TC-19109160289 (Tractor with Trolley), and RJ-25-TC-19511160602 (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 SUNIL SOLANKI /16,147,153,261 (Downloaded on 05/11/2020 at 09:33:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)