DEEWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 Cr. PC in an application under Section 451, Cr. PC rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that a truck bearing Registration No. UHL 9497 registered in the name of the petitioner was seized by the police station Kotwali, Bharatpur in a case under Sections 420, 467 and 468, IPC and bearing First Information Report No. 210/1987. The petitioner moved an application for interim custody of the truck which has been refused. In fact the petitioner himself is an accused in the case as the said truck has been found having different Registration number at the time of seizure and there was tampering of the engine chesis number. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by a detailed order considered all the circumstances and the law and rejected the application. Since he was of the opinion that in a case where number plate and engine Plate have been changed and the vehicle is required for identification in the court, there are charges of tampering with the evidence. In my opinion the reasoning given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for refusing the application are quite sound. I would not have interfered with this order in normal course, but there are some circumstances in every case which persuade a court at times to grant relief on consideration of the practical aspect of the matter also. It is a matter of common experience that whenever a vehicle is kept at police station it is in nobody's care and its condition deteriorates day by day and a time comes where it becomes a scrap even before the trial is concluded. In these circumstances, it not only becomes an individual's loss but is also a national loss, because if the vehicle is on wheels then it is used for transportation and earns revenue to the State also and, therefore, so for as practicable vehicle should not be permitted to be ruined in police station. Besides these circumstances in the instant case nobody else has come forward as a claimant of the truck and thirdly the case of the accused that his driver and his associates changed the plate and the number by duping him, cannot be adjudged as totally false and frivolous plea at this stage.