Decided on January 06,2012



Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant. J. - (1.) HEARD . By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 25.08.2011, passed by Sessions Judge Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 118 of 2011, and order dated 01.05.2011, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Dehradun.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that, ten vehicles were seized by police on 18.06.2010, found to be stolen, from the possession of the six accused. One of the vehicle was Honda City bearing registration No. HR -17F -2086. After the seizure of said vehicle the present petitioner Rakesh Kumar Verma, moved an application in the month of September 2010, for release of the aforesaid vehicle claiming that he is a real registered owner of the vehicle. The Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun, after obtaining report from the police, and hearing the parties found that the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Verma appears to be registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No. HR -17F -2086. Registration certificate was found to be genuine after verification from the registration office. The Magistrate directed that the vehicle to be released in the custody of the petitioner vide his order dated 27.10.2010. However, it further directed the petitioner to get fresh re -registration done from Regional Transport Office, Dehradun. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the aforesaid condition for release of vehicle is illegal, as no such directions, could be passed by the Magistrate, for getting the vehicle registered. It is further pleaded that the Magistrate has further erred in law by directing to seize the vehicle already released in favour of the petitioner, on the ground that he did not get the vehicle re -registered. Attention of this court is drawn to Annexure No. 14 to the petition, which is the reply received from the office of the Regional Transport Officer Dehradun, whereby said authority has informed the petitioner that the application given to the authority for re -registration cannot be allowed. In the circumstances, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the State, and after going through the impugned orders, this Court finds that the condition imposed by the Magistrate, for re -registration of the vehicle, and the consequential order, to seize the vehicle again are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same are quashed. The petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The revisional court's order dated 25.08.2011, affirming the condition imposed by the Magistrate is also quashed. The vehicle shall be released in favour of the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Verma, on the undertaking and the surety given by the petitioner in compliance of order dated 27.10.2010.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.