SUBHDRA DEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 17.7.2004 passed by learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar) Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 838 of 2004 wherein he rejected the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner and declined to give interim custody of the Maruti van bearing No. OR-02-K-9211 in her favour.

(2.) As per the petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. supported by an affidavit petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle alleged to have been involved in an offence under Section 392 I.P.C. On the basis of F.I.R. dated 27.5.2004 lodged before the I.I.C. of Chauliaganj Police Station the vehicle along with the R.C. Book was seized at Rasulgarh on 28.5.2004 and was kept in Chauliaganj Police Station premises being exposed to Sun and Rain. If the vehicle is allowed to be kept there, then naturally its condition would deteriorate. Hence, she prayed for interim custody of the vehicle in her favour pending final disposal of the case. Learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack rejected the petition holding that para-7 of the petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. reveals that the petitioner sold the vehicle to M/s. Auto Link, Bhubaneswar on 10.3.2004 on payment of EMI of Rs. 2730/- per month and that she was guardedly silent about the manner in which it came to the possession of the accused persons in the aforesaid G.R. Case.

(3.) It appears that instead of "purchase" the word "sold' has been wrongly typed in the above sentence because on perusal of Xerox copy of the R.C. Book in respect of the Maruti van bearing No. OR-02-K-9211 it is found that the petitioner purchased the vehicle from M/s. Auto Link, Bhubaneswar on 10.3.2004. There is no scope of confiscation of the vehicle. In appropriate case a vehicle can be released even in favour of an accused, if he is found to be the owner thereof. In the present case only because the petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. is silent with regard to the manner in which it came to the possession of accused persons, the Court below ought not have refused the prayer for interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly there is no rival claimant in respect of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.