MANISH KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra rejecting the application filed by the petitioner tinder Sec. 451 Crimial P.C. for releasing the vehicle Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. RJ 12 CA 2727 on Superdginama to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is power of attorney-holder of the registered owner of the vehicle and the jeep was stolen from the jurisdiction of Police Station Rishabhdeo on 28.10.2010, on which F.I.R. No. 525/2010 was registered at Police Station Rishabhdeo on 29.10.2010. During the course of the investigation of the said F.I.R., the jeep was seized and the petitioner applied to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kherwada for being granted the custody of the jeep in question on Superdginama which was accepted. In the meantime, it appears that the person who stole the jeep, used the same for transportation of illicit liquor, on which the jeep along with liquor was seized by the Station House Officer, Pachpadra on 12.12.2010 and an F.I.R. regarding the jeep being used for transportation of the liquor was registered and charge-sheet was filed thereupon. The petitioner who is the power of attorney- holder of the registered owner of the vehicle filed an application before the ACJM, Balotra for being granted the interim custody of the vehicle on Superdginama which was rejected by order dated 21.2.2011 and thereupon, the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra which was rejected by order dated 4.5.2011. Hence, the instant petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the victim in this case because his jeep was stolen away-and now he is being made to run from pillar to post for seeking the custody of his own jeep in question. He further submits that the petitioner was not charge-sheeted in connection with the F.I.R. No. 145/2010 and therefore it becomes apparent that the police itself is finding that the petitioner did not permit his vehicle to be used for transportation of the liquor. Thus, he submits that there was no rhyme or reason for the learned Courts below to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the strength of Sec. 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and directing the petitioner to approach the Excise Commissioner for release of his vehicle.