Compiled by Adv Mir Nagman Ali,
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
9028401027
SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON SUPRATNAMA/RETURN OF ARTICLES
Manoj Vs. Shriram Tpt. Finance Company Limited, 2002 1 JT 293.
in a situation where a financier is aggrieved by the order directing release of vehicle to the registered owner, it would be open for him to approach the Civil Court, but it would not be permissible for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to give effect to his alleged civil rights.
Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar [ (2001) 10 S. C. C. 881
the Hon'ble supreme Court, at the stage of Section 451 of the Code, did not decide the question of title nor the correctness of the rival versions regarding the transaction relating to the vehicle but felt that the vehicle ought not to remain in the compound of the Police Station and exposed to heat and cold because the vehicle was likely to be lost to all in such situation and proceeded to entrust the custody of the said vehicle temporarily to the appellant who was the ostensible name-holder in the registration certificate, on behalf of the court, till the conclusion of the trial when the trial Court was required to pass an order regarding the disposal of the property.
Gijji Vs. A. K. Gopinathan (1996 Cri. LJ. 140) ;
M/s. B. C. L. Financial services Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1999 Cri. L. J. 2305 : [1999 ALL MR (Cri) 597])
Neeraj Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U. P. (1992 Cri. L. J. 1247).
In this last mentioned case, a single Judge of Allahabad high Court has said that normally a vehicle shall be released in favour of the registered owner and that a person alleging transfer of a vehicle in his name is not entitled to release order in his favour merely on that basis in the absence of the registration and the plea of transfer if true, transferee has remedy in Civil Court for compensation
Vishnu Bhagwat VS State of Mah 2014 (2) BCR(Cri) 192, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 179
Where a financier is aggrieved by the order directing release of vehicle to the registered owner, it would be open for him to approach the Civil Court, but it would not be permissible for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to give effect to his alleged civil rights.
RABINDRA KUMAR PATI VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
2006 STPL(LE-Crim) 27972 [2007 CRI. L. J. 819] ORISSA HIGH COURT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ─ Section 457 ─ Seizure of vehicle by police ─ Interim custody of ─ O.P. No. 2purchase a tractor and trolley on hire-purchase agreement from O.P. No. 1/Bank ─ Default in re-payment of loan amount ─ Bank took away the vehicle and conducted auction sale ─ Being highest, offer of petitioner/purchaser was accepted ─ Claim and counter claim by loanee andpurchaser ─ Purchaser had purchase the vehicle by paying value thereof and spent huge amounts toward Road Tax etc., repair and purchase of accessories of said vehicle ─ He is entitled to interim custody of vehicle ─ Order of court below directingpurchaser to furnish security of Rs. One Lac modified to the extent that he shall furnish a bank guarantee for like amount.
Pralhad Thombre VS Mah 2012 (4) B Cr C 12
A. Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Sections 451 and 457--Release of vehicle seized during investigation--Petitioner/owner seeking release of Tavera Jeep, seized by police in investigation of alleged murder--Courts below refusing custody by observing that said vehicle was used for murder since cushion of the jeep was cut in some places which is important piece of evidence would be destroyed if vehicle is released--Petitioner admittedly is not accused in the said crime and doing business of renting out vehicles--Jeep ordered to be returned on execution of Supartnama to avoid deterioration rusting and decay, and to enable him to utilize the same to earn his livelihood by imposing conditions of not altering the interior of vehicle in any way whatsoever and produce the vehicle before court when required.
Pirappa Birajdar VS M/s Arti Co. 2004 All MR CRI 2006
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397, 451, 457--Revision--Maintainability of--Custody of petitioners Truck forcibly taken by respondents/financer--Complaint against financer under Section 379 of Penal Code--Magistrate ordering release of Truck to petitioner Sessions Court in revision set aside the order passed by Magistrate--Held, order passed under Section 451 being interlocutory order, revision is not maintainable--Further held, when an order does not decide the rights of the parties in any manner, it would become interlocutory order.
Manoj Sharma Vs Shriram Finance 2003 AllMR(Cri) 1757,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 451 -- Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 -- Release of vehicle to registered owner -- Pending Civil Suit -- Grievance of financier -- If the financier was aggrieved by the order directing release of vehicle to registered owner, it was open for the financier to approach the Civil Court in the pending civil suit for interference -- Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and Order of magistrate restored.
Jagjeet Singh VS Mah 2013 ALL MR CRI 486
Criminal Procedure Code,1973,Sections 451 and 457--Wild Life (Protection) Act,1972, Section 50--Return of truck seized under Act,1972--Truck driven by driver found to be loaded with 320 bags of cement and a carcass of spotted-deer--Applicant owner of vehicle not aware of offence if any committed by his driver or cleaner when they were sent on their way to Nagpur from Andhra Pradesh--Order rejecting return of truck on the ground that property seized by competent officer under Act,1972 has becomes Government property is erroneous--Truck directed to be released in favour of applicant on execution of bond.
Hasan Khan Vs Mah 2014 (1) BCR Cri 286
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 3 and 7--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 457--Interim custody of seized wheat--Magistrate as also Sessions Court refusing to hand over interim custody of seized wheat to petitioner by observing that District Supply Officer had not filed his report and had not passed orders as regards confiscation of seized goods--Petitioner already claiming that he had not received any notice is respect of confiscation proceedings--Failure of Supply Officer or investigating agency to say that confiscation proceedings had commenced could not have been viewed in their favour and adversely to petitioner-- Admittedly after completion of investigation charge sheet has already been filed--Holding impugned orders passed by below courts as perverse ,quashed and set aside--Interim custody directed to be handed over to petitioner on executing bond of Rs.1,40,000/-
Gulam Hussain VS Mah 2010 (4) B Cr C 44
Criminal Procedure Code,1973,Setion 457--Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960,Section 11(d)(e)(f)--Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act,1976,Section 5(1)--Interim custody of animals--Purchaser having valid licence to sell and purchase animals since is a rightful owner of the animals, such purchaser of animal would have preferential right of interim custody subject to condition of not subjecting animals for slaughtering.
(See 2014 (6) LJSOFT (AUR) 109)
Return of vehicles — Claim by financier — Open for him to approach the Civil Court but it would not be permissible for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to give effect to his alleged civil rights
Bhagwan Shiram Ahir vs Maharashtra 27 April 2012 Aurangabad Bench
Even if the gold ornaments have been converted into gold ingot. If the prosecution is not disputing the ownership of ornaments then gold ornaments entitled to be handed over to applicant.
BHARATH METHA VERSUS STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI
[AIR 2008 SC 1970 = (2008) 5 SCC 752 = 2008 AIR(SCW) 2289 = 2008 CRI. L. J. 2245 = 2008 (5) SCR 478 = (2008) 4 Scale 186 = (2008) 3 SCC(Cri) 72]SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 451 and 457 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, Sections 4(1)(A) and 4(1)(aaa) - Rectified Spirit Rules, Rules, 5 and 6 - Release of vehicle - Sought by financier -In the Registration Certificate the name of financier has been indicated and factum that vehicle was subject to such an agreement noted - In the agreement appellant-financier is described as owner - Respondent No. 2 as hirer - Application filed by Respondent No. 2 for release of vehicle accepted by High Court on certain conditions which were not fulfilled - Vehicle is lying with the seizing authorities for nearly eight years - Court directed release of vehicle in favour of appellant subject to conditions stipulated for respondent No. 2.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. VS MADHUKAR RAO
[(2008) 14 SCC 624 = JT 2008 (1) SC 364 = 2008 AIR(SCW) 787 = (2009) 2 SCC(Cri) 1140] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 451 - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 50(1)(c) - Criminal Procedure - Power of Magistrate - Sapurdnama - Interim release of vehicle - During pendency of trial in exercise of powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. - Provision of section 50 of the Act and the amendments made thereunder do not in any ways effect the Magistrate's power.
(Paras 17 and 18)
(B) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 39(1)(d) - Wild life protection -Provision of Section 39(1)(d) would come into play only after a court of competent jurisdiction found that accusation and the allegations made against the accused was true and recorded the finding that the seized articles was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence - Any attempt to operationlise section 39(1)(d) merely on the basis of seizure and accusations/allegations levelled by the departmental authorities would bring it into conflict with the constitutional provision and would render it unconstitutional and invalid.
SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VERSUSSTATE OF GUJARAT
AIR 2003 SC 638 = (2002) 10 SCC 283 = JT 2002 (10) SC 80 = 2002 AIR(SCW) 5301 = (2002) 8 Supreme 525 = 2002 (Supp4) SCR 217 = (2002) 8 Scale 516]SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 429, 420, 465, 468, 477(a), 114 - Property in custody disposed during pending cases - Various articles kept at police station for long period were alleged - Misappropriation of cash - Replacement of muddamal articles with spurious ones - For evolving suitable procedure to prevent misappropriation and replacement, court directions were sought - Held, for disposal of muddamal articles, some broad guidelines and procedures to be followed - Directing magistrates to ensure powers under s. 451 are property and promptly exercised - Articles kept in the police stations not more than fifteen days to one month in any case - Rules framed by high court to be supervise by high court registry and its property implementation - Adjourned for three weeks.
RAMESH CHAND JAIN VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
2010 STPL(LE) 43746 SC [(2007) 15 SCC 126 = (2010) 3 SCC(Cri) 527]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451- Criminal Procedure - Disposal of Property - Truck seized for non-production of papers - Conditional order of release of truck on super Dari - Affirmed by High Court - Appeal - Contended that respondent 2 merely one of guarantors for repayment of loan taken by appellant from bank for purchase of truck, not entitled for interim custody of seized vehicle - Held that inter se civil liabilities of appellant/registered owner of the truck, financier and guarantors not subject-matter relevant for granting interim custody of seized vehicle - Hence, impugned order set aside - Direction for furnishing security in sum of Rs4 lakhs to satisfaction of trial Magistrate - Appeal allowed.
KIRTA RAM VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
2008 STPL(LE-Crim) 29171 RAJ RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 457, 482-Order rejecting application for interim custody of vehicle-Quashing of-Present petition for-Seizure of vehicle during the course of transportation of poppy straw-Petitioner is registered owner of vehicle-Occupant of said vehicle claimed himself to be the owner of said vehicle on strength of agreement for sale executed by petitioner in his favour-Evidence showing that petitioner shifted the stand in claiming ownership of vehicle on strength of registration certificate which stands in his favour while denying ownership of vehicle during investigation-More so, it was “D” who was in possession of vehicle at the relevant time of offence on strength of agreement for sale and he has not sought the custody of vehicle-Therefor, petitioner is not entitled to interim custody of vehicle in question.
RABINDRA KUMAR PATI VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
2006 STPL(LE-Crim) 27972 ORISSA HIGH COURT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ─ Section 457 ─ Seizure of vehicle by police ─ Interim custody of ─ O.P. No. 2 purchase a tractor and trolley on hire-purchase agreement from O.P. No. 1/Bank ─ Default in re-payment of loan amount ─ Bank took away the vehicle and conducted auction sale ─ Being highest, offer of petitioner/purchaser was accepted ─ Claim and counter claim by loanee and purchaser ─ Purchaser had purchase the vehicle by paying value thereof and spent huge amounts toward Road Tax etc., repair and purchase of accessories of said vehicle ─ He is entitled to interim custody of vehicle ─ Order of court below directing purchaser to furnish security of Rs. One Lac modified to the extent that he shall furnish a bank guarantee for like amount.
ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTDVERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
2011 STPL(LE-Crim) 34645 ALL (ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) 2011 CrLJ 2011
Criminal Procedure Code; 1973 - Section 451 - Release of vehicle - Case registered under Sections 394/411 I.P.C. - Vehicle was recovered by police during investigation - Ownership is not absolute - Registration certificate was subject to Hire Purchase Agreement showing that ownership of said vehicle was subject to the terms and conditions agreed into between the hirer and owner - Revisionist being owner of vehicle, entitled to its custody - Order impugned releasing the property/vehicle in the name of O.P. No. 2/hirer - Not sustainable - Impugned order liable to be quashed and set aside - Lower Court directed to take possession of vehicle and release it to the custody of revisionist.
MANOJVERSUS SHRIRAM TPT. FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED
2002 STPL(LE) 30870 SC [JT 2002 (1) SC 293 = (2002) 2 Supreme 107] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451 - Mr. Rao appearing for the financier vehemently contended that in view of the pendency of the civil suits, and the order of the status quo passed therein, the magistrate was not justified in passing the order granting the vehicle in possession of Shri manoj Sharma
No comments:
Post a Comment