RAMZAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 22. 6. 1991 passed by the S. D. M. Nagaur, refusing to give the delivery of Maruti Gypsy on Supurdginama and also for quashing the order dated 12. 6. 1991 passed by the Special Magistrate, Economic Offences, Jaipur.

(2.) AS per the facts mentioned in the memo of petition, on 13. 4. 1991, the police party of Police Station Nagaur apprehended the petitioner along with others and also recovered Indian currency worth Rs. 2. 45 lacs from Dwarka Das from Room No. 18 of the Hotel and also seized Maruti Gypsy u/s 102 Cr. P. C. which was parked outside the hotel. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded under threat and coercion. A case No. 26/91 State V. Dwarka Das and others was registered u/s 109 Cr. P. C. The petitioner moved an application before the learned S. D. M. for giving the vehicle to him on Supurdginama, who vide his order dated 22. 6. 1991 ordered that the vehicle had been seized u/s 102 Cr. P. C. therefore, notice may be issued to the Station House Officer, Nagaur that if the vehicle is not required in this case and any other case and if the said vehicle is not connected with any customs case, the same may be handed over to the petitioner and the matter was fixed for 15. 8. 91. Meanwhile, the police handed over the custody of the Maruti Gypsy vehicle to Customs Department. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application u/s 457 Cr. P. C. in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) and prayed that the vehicle may be handed over to him on supurdginama. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 12. 6. 1991 rejected the said application u/s 457 Cr. P. C. and did not hand over possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in this court. Notices were issued. Customs Department has put in appearance through Shri K. N. Shrimal, Advocate. Arguments have been heard.

(3.) HE has further placed reliance on Remopaul V. Union of India (7) wherein it has been held that the order of confiscation u/s 452 (1) Cr. P. C. of foreign currency seized from the petitioner, who was facing trial u/s 135, Customs Act, was illegal.