LAWS(MPH)-2008-7-113

VIMAL CHANDRA RATHORE Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On July 28, 2008
Vimal Chandra Rathore Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 397 of CrPC, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.5.2008 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 75/08, whereby rejected the application filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the seized vehicle (Jeep) No. UP 93 F-9940 which had been seized during investigation of the crime by the Police concerned.

(2.) IT is submitted that Police Bitharwar district Gwalior had registered a Crime No. 75/08 for the offence punishable under sections 364 and 365 of IPC and 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act and during the investigation vehicle (Jeep) No. UP 93 F -9940 had been seized by the Police. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle (Jeep) concerned and he had handed over the jeep to his driver Kedar Singh, from whose possession the Police had seized the aforesaid vehicle. The petitioner had filed an application under section 457 of CrPC for interim custody of the vehicle to him as he is the registered owner of the vehicle (Jeep) concerned. The learned trial Court by impugned order rejected the aforesaid application, hence, this revision on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle (Jeep); he is not involved in this case but the jeep had been seized from the possession of the driver of the petitioner and if ultimate conclusion of the case turn into conviction of the accused person, then also there is no provision for forfeiture of the concerning vehicle (Jeep) belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner is also ready to produce the vehicle as and when called by the trial Court, during trial. In view of that, the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application for interim custody of the vehicle (Jeep) filed by the petitioner. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and also prayed for the interim possession of the vehicle concerned on supurdigi during pendency of the trial.