Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashruddin @ Asru vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No.M-33509 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-33509 of 2011
Date of Decision: 04.10.2012
Ashruddin @ Asru ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana
for the respondent-State.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of Order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri as well as Order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which the application of the petitioner for releasing Truck no.HR-27J-5560 on superdari was dismissed in case FIR No.247 dated 14.08.2011 registered under Sections 147, 149, 353, 186 and 435 IPC at Police Station Sadar Dadri, District Bhiwani.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the FIR, in question, was registered and truck of the petitioner was taken into possession on 14.08.2011 and since then, the vehicle, in dispute, is standing in Police Station Sadar Dadri, District Bhiwani. The application was moved by the petitioner, being the registered owner, for superdari of said truck which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri vide Order dated 02.09.2011 on the ground that the vehicle, in dispute, is unfit for use and its repair cannot be done being a case property. The petitioner challenged the said Order by way of filing revision petition before the Crl. Misc. No.M-33509 of 2011 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani which was also dismissed.
Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge both the Orders passed by the Courts below on the ground that he being registered owner of the truck is entitled to get the same on superdari and the truck is a source of his livelihood and his family is dependent on the income earned through it. Learned counsel also submits that the trial may take some time to conclude and in case, the truck, in dispute, is not released on superdari, it will not only decrease the price or value of the vehicle but the family of the petitioner would be deprived from the income earned through the said vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that the truck has been taken on loan and the instalments of the said truck are to be paid. Ultimately, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is ready to abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed by the Court and no purpose would be served by keeping that truck in the Police Station and with the passage of time, the condition of that truck would be deteriorated.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the release of truck, in question, on superdari on the ground that the Orders passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned and the truck is already in damaged condition because of accident and in case, any repair work is done, that will amount to change of case property.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the Orders passed by both the Courts below.
Admittedly, the present petitioner is registered owner of the truck, in dispute and the trial is going on. Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code deals with custody and disposal of property pending trial which is reproduced as under :-
"451. Order for custody and disposal of Crl. Misc. No.M-33509 of 2011 3 property pending trial in certain cases - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "property" includes -
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence."
As per Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code, in case, any property is produced before a Criminal Court during the inquiry or trial, the Court may make such Order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of the property pending during pendency of the inquiry or trial and in case, the case property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it for sale or dispose it of. The scope of powers as provided under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code is of a summary nature which does not adjudicate upon the civil rights of the parties. The discretion has been given to the Court for passing an order for the custody of property.
The only ground which has been taken by both the Court below is that the truck is accidental and by repairing, the condition of the truck would be changed, which is not permissible. The case of the petitioner is that the truck has been purchased on loan and instalments are Crl. Misc. No.M-33509 of 2011 4 to be paid and trial can take long time to conclude. The property, in dispute, would not only lesser in value but no purpose would be served by keeping it in police Station. By parking the vehicle idle would also damage not only its value but its condition also. There is no dispute about the ownership as the petitioner is admittedly the registered owner of the truck and is ready to abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by the Court.
In Hardam Singh v. Vidya Sagar and another, 1974 Criminal Law Times 61, this Court considered the question regarding custody of vehicle pending criminal case and held that the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered is prima facie owner of the vehicle and is entitled to its custody. Besides, it was also held that the possession is not by itself a true criterion for granting under Section 516-A, Criminal Procedure code (now Section 482) custody of a motor vehicle during the pendency of a criminal case. It is the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered with the registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, is prima facie the owner of the same and is entitled to its custody unless any other person establishes his superior title of claim over it.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons as mentioned above, the Order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri as well as Order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani are set aside and the trial Court is directed to release the vehicle, in question, to the petitioner on superdari within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order by imposing reasonable terms and conditions as it may deem fit.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 04.10.2012 JUDGE gurpreet