Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.70 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002
99. In the present case, the petitioner is registered owner of the
car in question and the accused has no objection to the petitioner
being permitted to sell the vehicle and in that view of the matter,
the learned Sessions Court should have permitted the petitioner to
sell the vehicle after taking photographs of the same. The Supreme
Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra 1),
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra 2) and
General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. (supra) has clearly
held that the production of the vehicle during trial is not necessary
and the photographs of the vehicle would be sufficient to be proved
in evidence. The Committee appointed by the Chief Justice of this
Court in their Report which was circulated to all the judicial
officers also clearly approved the said procedure. However, in
utter violation of the Supreme Court judgments as well as the
Report of the Committee of this Court, the learned Sessions Court
held that the vehicle would be required during evidence. The
Crl. M.C.4485/2013 Page 74 of 76
Sessions Court further gravely erred in recording that the accused
may stake a claim on the vehicle without even asking him. When
the accused appeared before this Court on 13th December, 2013, he
clearly staked no claim on the vehicle and had no objection for the
sale of the vehicle. The least expected from the learned Sessions
Court was to have asked the accused whether he had any claim or
objection to the sale of the vehicle. The petitioner being a
registered owner of the vehicle which was stolen and recovered
from the possession of the accused, the view taken by the learned
Sessions Court (without even asking the accused) that the accused,
the alleged thief, would stake a claim is clearly perverse. The
learned Sessions Court also did not appreciate the petitioner's
contention that the petitioner would not get a fair price if the
vehicle is sold with a bond and further that the value of the vehicle
is already depreciated and it is expensive to maintain the same.
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2002
In view of the
judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638, it is
submitted that the vehicle may be allowed to be
sold without any condition of superdari.
So far as the proposition laid down in the
judgment above referred is concerned, there
cannot be any two opinions. However, this
judgment nowhere says that the permission to sell
is to be given invariably. The judgment primarily
talks of allowing the owner to use a particular
object but the same shall remain on superdari
bond. The permission to sell is required to be
given only in those cases where the case property
is of perishable nature. The vehicle in question
since does not fall into the perishable category
and it is only five-six years old. Normally an
automobile is kept and maintained for decades in
this country. Therefore, in such circumstances,
the application moved on behalf of the applicant
does not have any sound basis, especially when it
is with him for his use without there being any
restrictions.
The Police Act, 1949
Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs State Of Mysore And Anr. on 19 April, 1977
In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in
Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore (supra),
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra 1),
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra 2) and
General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. (supra), the SHO/IO
shall file applications and produce the case properties presently in
custody of Delhi Police before the concerned Court within one
week whereupon the concerned Court shall pass appropriate order
within one month thereafter.
General Insurance Council & Ors vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 19 April, 2010
96. Since the Supreme Court has fixed responsibility of the
Registry of the High Court to ensure the compliance of its
directions, the Delhi Police shall submit a quarterly compliance
report before the Registrar General of this Court. The first
compliance report for the period 1st October, 2014 to 31st
December, 2014 be filed by 15th January, 2015. The quarterly
reports thereafter, be filed after every three months. The
compliance report shall contain the particulars of the applications
for disposal of the properties filed and the orders passed thereon by
the concerned Courts. The compliance report shall also contain the
list of cases in which the applications could not be filed within the
prescribed period along with the explanation thereof. The
Registrar General shall consider the reports and ensure the
compliance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. The
compliance reports be filed by the police officers made responsible
by the Supreme Court in para 14 of General Insurance Council v.
State of A.P.(supra).