PURUSHOTTAM PUNDLIKRAO BAMBAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 06/12/2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katol, whereby the application under Sec. 457 the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.") for releasing the vehicle in the custody of the applicant has been rejected, and the order dtd. 15/01/2022, whereby the revision against the said order has also been dismissed.

(3.) It is the contention of Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioner, that an incorrect vehicle was seized as what is shown in seizure panchanama, is the seizure of the vehicle bearing registration no. MH-40/BG-8879, however, what has been seized, is the vehicle bearing registration no. MH-40/CD-8879. He therefore submits, that both the Courts below had erred in not accepting the plea in this regard. He submits that even otherwise, presuming that the correct vehicle was seized, considering that the seizure is of dtd. 21/11/2021, the same ought to have been directed to be released on the terms, as the vehicle was lying idle and was causing loss to the petitioner and also being damaged on this count. He further submits, that an undertaking has been filed in this regard, that in case, both the vehicles owned by the petitioner are involved in the same offence in future, both the vehicles would be surrendered with the Competent Authority including the value of the vehicles. He therefore submits, that the vehicle be released in the custody of the petitioner by unloading the same.