PRIYABRATA SUKLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the owner of a vehicle seized by police in course of investigation is entitled to interim release of the same, and if so, under what circumstances is the question which needs determination in the present case.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of an Ambassador car bearing registration number OR-02-M-7954. The said vehicle was engaged as a Taxi for being used on hire. One Basudev Ray was the driver of the vehicle. On 25-4-2002 at about 3 p.m. when the vehicle was parked at Paradip Taxi Stand awaiting customers, some persons approached the driver for hiring the same. It was disclosed by them that they wanted to go to Puri to attend a marriage ceremony. Thereafter the vehicle was seized on 27-4-2002 by the OIC of Himapara P. S. in connection with Himapara P. S. case No. 69 of 2002 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 399 and 402, IPC, which was subsequently converted to G. R. case No. 277/02 of the court of the J.M.F.C., Nimapara. Coming to know about seizure of his vehicle, the petitioner went to Nimapara Police Station, produced the documents in support of his ownership of the vehicle and requested to release the vehicle in his Zima. The O.I.C. of the police station however did not accede to his request. The petitioner was therefore constrained to file a petition under Section 457, Cr. P.C. before the J.M.F.C., Nimapara in the aforesaid G.R. case. It was contended by the petitioner that he being an unemployed youth, had purchased the vehicle for the purpose of running it as a Taxi under the hypothecation of the Indian Overseas Bank, Paradip Branch and the vehicle being his only source of income and as he had absolutely no knowledge about the crime for which the vehicle was seized, the same should be released in his favour. He also undertook to maintain the vehicle in proper condition and produce the same as and when required in course of trial of the case in which the vehicle was allegedly involved. The J.M.F.C., it is alleged, by order dated 9-5-2002 without properly appreciating the submission of the petitioner, rejected his prayer on the ground that investigation was still in progress and as the case in which the vehicle was involved was exclusively triable by a court of session and he had no power to release the vehicle.

(3.) The said order of rejection was challenged by the petitioner before this Court is Cri. Revision no. 461 of 2002. By order dated 30-7-2002 this Court disposed of the said Revision giving liberty to the petitioner to file a further petition under Section 457, Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate and directing the learned Magistrate that if such a petition was filed, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law and observed that non-completion of investigation should not be the sole reason to reject the application. In consonance with the said order, the petitioner once again filed a petition before the J.M.F.C. under Section 457, Cr. P.C. enclosing the relevant documents in support of his ownership of the vehicle and praying for release of the same. The said petition again having been dismissed by the J.M.F.C. by his order dated 1-10-2002 the present Criminal Revision has been filed.