JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition under section 482 Cr. Procedure Code against the order of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dt. 3/5/86. by which he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner Jai Singh or the return of motorcycle which was confiscated by the Police.

(2.) The notice of this petition was given to the Public Prosecutor on 23/1/157 and he was directed to produce the case-diary today. The learned Public Prosecutor states that be has not received the case-diary and he is unable to assist the Court with regard to this case. This is very sad affair that the State is so negligent and the Investigating Officer is so powerful that in spite of the direction of the court, he did not produce the case diary today. This Court being the highest Court of the State cannot work on the mercy of the Investigating Officer. If the case-diary is not submitted by the Investigating Officer, it is the matter between the Public Prosecutor and the Government of Rajasthan. Court is nothing to do so far as the Administration of the Police Department is concerned. I see no reason to adjourn this case on this ground where the Investigating Officer has disobeyed the order of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a case under section 307 I.P.C. was registered at police Station Shashtri Nagar and in that FIR. there is no allegation against the petitioner Jai Singh as well as no fact has been mentioned that any offence has been committed when this motor-cycle was used or have perused the order of the learned Sessions Judge who has rejected the revision petition in a very cursory manner. As there nothing on the record to show that the motorcycle was any more needed by the Police and nor it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the motorcycle should not be released under such circumstances, it means that this motor-cycle has been unnecessarily kept in custody by the Police. If at all they need this motor-cycle for the purpose of identification by the witnesses, the purpose could be served if a photograph of this motorcycle showing the clear registration No. be taken and kept on the record. Therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and this petition is accepted. It is directed that photograph of the motor-cycle, as directed above, be taken immediately and the motorcycle be handed over to the petitioner on Superdagi Nama having a surety of Rs. 20,000/- for producing in the same condition as and when desired by the Court. The motor-cycle will be handed over to the petitioner on showing the registration No., the proof of his ownership, before the Investigating Officer.