Orissa High Court
Md. Rabani Ali vs State Of Odisha ...... Opp. Party on 17 May, 2024
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 183 of 2024
An application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.
challenging the judgment dated 15.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 01 of 2024 by the learned Adhoc Additional District &
Sessions Judge (POCSO) (Fast Track) Special Court, Rourkela.
--------------
Md. Rabani Ali ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Rabindranath Prusty, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Ms. S. Mishra, A.S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
17.05.2024 Savitri Ratho, J This Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 01 of 2024 which arises out of Plantsite PS Case No. 245 of 2023, corresponding to GR Case No. 1213 of 2023, which is now pending before the learned Adhoc Additional District & CRLREV No. 183 of 2024 Page 1 of 9 Sessions Judge (POCSO) (Fast Track) Special Court, Rourkela in ST Case No. 247 of 2023.
2. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of Maruti Suzuki Car bearing Registration No. OD-14-S-3696, which has been seized in connection with the above case. The allegation was that Mojammil Hussain the husband of the victim and the co-accused Afroz Akta @ Papu misbehaved with the petitioner, while they were travelling in the said car. The victim was forcibly taken into the said car by the co-accused person, and he tried to force himself on her. When she protested her husband Mojammil Hussain, he assaulted her with knife.
3. Learned trial Court heard both the counsel and submits that the FIR story reveals that the victim along with her two children were residing in the rented house of Abas building. Her husband always threatened her, forced her to keep illicit relationship with Afroz Aktar @ Papu. The said Papu and her husband made sexual relationship with her forcibly against her will and threatening her with dire consequence when she protested. This event continued for more than 7 months. As such she left that CRLREV No. 183 of 2024 Page 2 of 9 house and shifted to Panposh, Rourkela and is residing in a rented house. Here also Papu and her husband regularly harassed her. On 20.06,2023 while she was at her rented house with her children her husband and one Dannish Hussen came and threatened her with a knife and brought her and her children by threatening to kill her. On the way the husband took Papu to the car and compelled her to keep physical relationship with her. In spite her denial he assaulted her with a knife for which she sustained injuries on her head.
During the course of investigation, the I.O seized the Maruti Suzuki car bearing Registration No. OD-14S-3696. Perusal of the record further showed that the I.O has submitted preliminary charge sheet keeping the investigation open for Nikahanama register and also about the car. Since the investigation was not yet completed, he was not inclined to release the seized Maruti Suzuki car in zima and accordingly the Misc. Case was rejected.
4. Mr. R. N. Prusty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the case. The petitioner earns his living from the hire charges of the vehicle and due to detention of the vehicle in the Champua Police Station he is suffering financial loss each day and the condition CRLREV No. 183 of 2024 Page 3 of 9 of the vehicle is also deteriorating as it is exposed to the elements (sun & rain). He has filed the Contract Carriage (Motor Cab) permit and Registration certificate of the car, which indicates that the said car has been registered in his name. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai and others vs. State of Gujurat:
(2002) 10 SCC 283 : (2003) 24 OCR SC 444, he prays the vehicle may be released in his favour during pendency of the trial.
5. Ms. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that she has received instruction that the vehicle is no longer required for investigation and the same may be released in favour of the petitioner, subject to the condition that he produces it in the Court in case of necessity and as and when (directed by the Court), and subject to verification of his ownership.
6. In the case of Sundarbhai (supra) in the matter of seizure and release of vehicle, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
..." Vehicles CRLREV No. 183 of 2024 Page 4 of 9
15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.
16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.
17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned CRLREV No. 183 of 2024 Page 5 of 9 by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared." .....
In the case of Ashis Ranjan Mohanty vs State and others reported in (2022) 85 OCR 705 , (a PIL filed by a practicing Advocate concerned about the ever-growing stock of seized vehicles and other properties in the various police stations in the State of Odisha) , after referring to and discussing the decisions of the Supreme Court in Manjit Singh v. State, Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore (1977) 4 SCC 358; Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283, and General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. (2010) 6 SCC 768 and the Delhi High Court in Manjit Singh v. State decided on 10th September 2014 in CRLMC No.4485 of 2013), a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows : CRLREV No. 183 of 2024 Page 6 of 9
"Vehicles
16. As regards the vehicles, the following directions are issued:
(I) Vehicles involved in an offence may be released either to the rightful owner or any person authorised by the rightful owner after
(a) preparing a detailed panchnama;
(b) taking digital photographs and a video clip of not more than 1 minute duration of the vehicle from all angles;
(c) encrypting both the digital photograph and the video clip with a hashtag with date and time stamp with the hash value being noted in the order passed by the concerned court;
(d) preserving the encrypted digital photograph and video clip on a pen drive to be kept in a secure cover in the file and preferably also uploading it simultaneously on a server kept either in the concerned Court premises or in the server of the jurisdictional District Court
(e) preparing a valuation report of the vehicle by an approved valuer;
(f) obtaining a security bond.
(II) the concerned court will record the statements of the complainant, the accused as well as the person to whom the custody of the vehicle is handed over affirming that the above steps have taken place in their presence. (III) Subject to compliance with (I) and (II) above, no party shall insist on the production of the vehicle at any CRLREV No. 183 of 2024 Page 7 of 9 subsequent stage of the case. The panchnama, the encrypted digital photograph and video clip along with the valuation report should suffice for the purposes of evidence. (IV) The Courts should invariably pass orders for return of vehicles and/or accord permission for sale thereof and if in a rare instance such request is refused, then reasons thereof to be recorded in writing should be the general norm rather than the exception.
(V) In the event of the vehicle in question being insured, the concerned Court shall issue notice to the owner and the insurance company prior to disposal of the vehicle. If there is no response or the owner declines to take the vehicle or informs that he has claimed insurance/released his right in the vehicle to the insurance company and the insurance company fails to take possession of the vehicle, the vehicle may be ordered to be sold in public auction. (VI) If a vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, it may be ordered to be sold by public auction.
7. Considering the said submission of the counsel and the aforesaid decisions, as the vehicle is getting damaged, and is not required for the purpose of investigation. I am inclined to direct for interim release of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Car bearing Registration No. OD-14-S-3696 in favour of the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the relevant conditions CRLREV No. 183 of 2024 Page 8 of 9 mentioned in the case of Ashis Ranjan Mohanty(supra) apart from the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall produce the original registration certificates, insurance papers before the concerned police station which shall be verified properly, and true attested copies thereof shall be retained by the investigating officer/I.I.C. of the police station.
(ii) The petitioner shall not change the colour of any part of the vehicle or engine or tamper with the engine and chassis numbers of the vehicle.
(iii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial Court.
8. The impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 01 of 2024 by the learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge (POCSO) (Fast Track) Special Court, Rourkela is set aside.
9. The Criminal Revision is allowed.
...........................
(Savitri Ratho, J) Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 17th May, 2024.
Subhalaxmi, Junior Stenographer.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 03-Jun-2024 14:29:36 CRLREV No. 183 of 2024 Page 9 of 9