LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-24

RUDRO RAM KHUTIYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On February 25, 2022
Rudro Ram Khutiya Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order dtd. 25/1/2021 passed by the Collector Korba whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 for releasing the vehicle of the petitioner on Supurdnama has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner is registered owner of vehicle Bolero registration No. C.G.-13-AB-5684 which was seized in connection with Crime No. 332/2019 for the offence punishable under Sec. 457, 380, 411, 413, 120-B of IPC and Sec. 3, 7 of the Essential Commodities Act registered at Police Station- Urga, District-Korba (C.G.) in which the petitioner is not an accused and the criminal case has not been decided for the commission of offence of Essential Commodities Act. Petitioner has filed application for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama before learned Magistrate but the learned Collector has rejected the same stating that no report for confiscation of the vehicle has been submitted by the respondent No.3/Station House Officer, Police Station- Urga and the vehicle is lying at the police Station for more than 1 year and 6 months and he is debarred from using such vehicle.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle. Learned Collector has committed an error of law in passing the impugned order by dismissing the application of the petitioner for interim custody/Supurdnama of the vehicle though he is ready to fulfill all the terms and conditions and also ready to furnish the surety amount as directed in this regard. It is settled principle of law that when the ingredients of the offence has not been proved then the seized property is to be handed over to the owner from whose possession it is seized. The prosecution has not proved that the vehicle was used in commission of offence, therefore, the order of rejection of Supurdnama application is not in accordance with law. Learned Collector failed to consider the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this High Court in series of judgment and passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.