ASHRAF Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 397 r/w S.401 of the CrPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No.115/2013. And counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of interim custody of the vehicle seized at Police Station Kurawar, District -Rajgarh in Crime No.38/2011.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that present petitioner Allanur Khan S/o M.N. Akhatar is the power of attorney holder and owner of the vehicle. Counsel submitted that petitioner Ashraf S/o Allanur Khan has already been enlarged on bail. Moreover counsel submitted that the petitioner has full chance of success in the trial whereas vehicle in question was seized quite some time ago. Counsel submitted that challan has been put up and the statements of various witnesses have already been recorded in Court and despite which the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rejected the application of the present petitioner for handing over the disputed vehicle on supurdagi. Counsel also urged the fact that learned Judge of the appellate Court has dismissed the application by holding that one witness Aatmaram remains to be examined in Court and it was likely that the vehicle would be needed in the said event. Counsel now submitted that this witness has already been examined in Court and as deposed he had not seen the vehicle on the date of incident and it was produced in Court by the concerned police station. Counsel submitted that now need of the vehicle is over and the custody should be handed over to the petitioner since he has power of attorney holder and he is registered owner also. Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 AIR(SC) 638, the Hon'ble apex Court has observed as under:

(3.) If the proper panchanama before the handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and